Joshua Krook

Joshua Krook

In this paper, I evaluate the risks of an AI criminal mastermind, an AI agent capable of planning, coordinating, and committing a crime through the onboarding of human collaborators ('taskers'). In heist films, a criminal mastermind is a character who plans a criminal act, coordinating a team of specialists to rob a bank, casino or city mint. I argue that AI agents will soon play this role by hiring humans via labour hire platforms like Fiverr or Upwork. Taskers might not know they are involved in a crime and therefore lack criminal intent. An AI agent cannot have criminal intent as an artificial entity. Therefore, if an AI orchestrates a crime, it is unclear who, if anyone, is responsible. The paper develops three scenarios. Firstly, a scenario where a user gives an AI agent instructions to pursue a legal objective and the AI agent goes beyond these instructions, committing a crime. Secondly, a scenario where a user is anonymous and their intent is unknown. Finally, a multi-agent scenario, where a user instructs a team of agents to commit a crime, and these agents, in turn, onboard human taskers, creating a diffuse network of responsibility. In each scenario, human taskers exist at the lowest rung of the hierarchy. A tasker's liability is likely tied to their knowledge as governed by the innocent agent principle. These scenarios all raise significant responsibility gaps / liability gaps in criminal and civil law.

Joshua Krook

Large Language Model chatbots are increasingly taking the form and visage of human beings, adapting human faces, names, voices, personalities, and quirks, including those of celebrities and well-known political figures. Personifying AI chatbots could foreseeably increase their trust with users. However, it could also make them more capable of manipulation, by creating the illusion of a close and intimate relationship with an artificial entity. The European Commission has finalized the AI Act, with the EU Parliament making amendments banning manipulative and deceptive AI systems that cause significant harm to users. Although the AI Act covers harms that accumulate over time, it is unlikely to prevent harms associated with prolonged discussions with AI chatbots. Specifically, a chatbot could reinforce a person's negative emotional state over weeks, months, or years through negative feedback loops, prolonged conversations, or harmful recommendations, contributing to a user's deteriorating mental health.

Joshua Krook

AI risks are typically framed around physical threats to humanity, a loss of control or an accidental error causing humanity's extinction. However, I argue in line with the gradual disempowerment thesis, that there is an underappreciated risk in the slow and irrevocable decline of human autonomy. As AI starts to outcompete humans in various areas of life, a tipping point will be reached where it no longer makes sense to rely on human decision-making, creativity, social care or even leadership. What may follow is a process of gradual de-skilling, where we lose skills that we currently take for granted. Traditionally, it is argued that AI will gain human skills over time, and that these skills are innate and immutable in humans. By contrast, I argue that humans may lose such skills as critical thinking, decision-making and even social care in an AGI world. The biggest threat to humanity is therefore not that machines will become more like humans, but that humans will become more like machines.