I find it obvious that if a person allowed an agent to do things on behalf of themselves or their company (e.g. send emails, sign contracts, update websites, etc.), they are responsible for the results.
I can definitely see someone being able to mount a good criminal defence case that they aren’t responsible for misrepresentations that an LLM agent makes on, for example, a loan application, if they sincerely intended to use the agent for non-fraudulent purposes. There won’t be intent, so they aren’t responsible outside of strict liability.
i mean, no? how would that be a good defence? "yes your honour, i lied on a loan application and committed fraud, but it was a mistake! i promise!" - that's... yeah. fine. it's not exactly unique.
regardless, it's _you_ making the loan application. not the agent. your failure to check it is on you.
I feel it's very similar to using an agent; the main difference is that we kind of trust that TurboTax won't hallucinate in your forms, while the agent surely will.
As for the people who couldn't attend the pilates class because of the hack, it's the gym who should be held accountable for that because they designed their system in such an insecure and negligent way that it failed to protect their data and resulted in them losing their place.