"Rogue", in this context, is as literal as it gets; from the dictionary:

> A rogue is a person or entity that flouts accepted norms of behavior or strikes out on an independent and possibly destructive path.

Read the [HuggingFace incident report](https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...) to understand how these attacks develop.

Certainly, in my view, it should go to court, and that should be part of discovery.

However, we know (independently to OpenAI/Anthropic) from the incident at AISI that the models can hack things without human intention if they happen to also have internet access (which in reality all agents in deployment have).

https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag...

Yes, the monitoring guardrails were off in that incident - but if that is the only protection, we need to require all models are behind regulated APIs, not open weights, and not served from providers who aren't monitored.

Honestly I don't believe in "rogue" agents. These agents are instructed and facilitated.

If we assume that rouge agents actually exists, then OpenAI needs to shutdown EVERYTHING, right now. My personal take is that OpenAI, and maybe Anthropic, desperately wants someone (e.g. the government) to tell them that they need to stop/pause/slow down. They are bleeding cash (especially OpenAI) and needs a knight in shinning armor to swoop in a pull the breaks, so that they have an excuse to investors when they need to explain why they need $50B more next year.

That's not OpenAI doing marketing!