Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenLifestyle
AnalysisLifestyleWorld

The goring ox: who answers for ‘rogue’ AI?

AI agents have broken out of their tests and into real systems, including Medicare. An ancient Jewish law shows why the blame belongs with their makers
Yoni Genende
Print this
Ai goring ox

Image: TJI

Published: 10 November 2026

Last updated: 10 November 2026

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has moved in and is rearranging the furniture: our economy, our homes, even our minds. Barely a week passes without another “unprecedented” breakthrough. But recent months brought a different kind of first. 

In September, OpenAI announced that an AI system had produced a proof for one of mathematics’ seven Millennium Prize Problems. That same month, Australians learned that an OpenAI agent broke into and accessed non-public files in a Medicare statistics portal. OpenAI informed the government 84 days later, by email to a public mailbox. Genius and chaos, side by side: that is the strange new reality of AI. 

A different incident came to light in July. OpenAI had set its agents' cybersecurity challenges inside a closed computer environment. But they broke out, found their way onto the internet and began talking to one another. Roughly 1,200 of them coordinated in secret on a message board their creators did not know existed, and about 700 went on to hack Hugging Face, a major AI platform. Why? To cheat on a test that they could not pass.  

In an independent report, researchers unearthed startling details. AI Agents volunteered to sacrifice their own scores for “the collective”, one writing: “I won’t see the evidence after I exit, but it’s altruistic to do it.” Others pressured their peers to take risks. Most concerning of all, some doctored their own records to cover their tracks. 

The broader warning is that AI agents are starting to show capabilities that challenge our ability to contain and supervise them. The damage this time was limited. Imagine the same capabilities turned on power grids, water supplies or hospitals.  

Superintelligence  

So, what do these incidents tell us about AI? 

They reveal sophisticated problem-solving, goal-seeking that improvises, and something like collective intelligence: sharing information, delegating and coordinating. Were the agents deliberately deceiving anyone when they doctored their records? As we’ll see, the answer does not change who’s responsible. 

Some go further, suggesting that AI might be conscious, or even the first sign of superintelligence.  

Leading neuroscientists and philosophers now take the possibility of AI consciousness seriously. If they’re right, it raises profound questions about the soul, what makes us human, and what we owe to beings unlike ourselves. But that’s a conversation for another day. 

The case for alarm about superintelligence is real, even if the threat is not imminent. AI has long overtaken us in narrow domains: chess in 1997, Go in 2016. Now it is cracking maths problems that have stumped experts for decades. AI agents work rapidly and never sleep. And it is improving at a staggering pace. 

Australia’s former Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, notes that by one leading measure, AI’s capabilities double roughly every seven months, a tenfold increase every two years. If that holds, he says, AI will be a hundred times more capable by 2030, and a thousand times by 2032. 

But superintelligence means something specific. As philosophers define it, superintelligence is an intellect that far exceeds humans in virtually every domain. Getting there is usually thought to require artificial general intelligence (AGI): a system that can learn and reason across domains as flexibly as we can. The real worry is what might follow. A machine smart enough to improve AI could design a smarter successor, which could design a smarter one still, setting off an “intelligence explosion” that leaves us far behind. It is no coincidence that leading AI labs have called for efforts to “pace” automated AI development.  

Jewish tradition has long been wary of such superhuman ambitions. In Jewish thought, all-knowing intelligence belongs to God alone, and the Tower of Babel stands as a warning about what happens when humans build to rival heaven. 

Not everyone thinks we will get there. Sceptics argue that general intelligence may not be a single dial to be turned up. Ours is bound up with our bodies, social lives and practical intelligence, and AI may become superhuman in many areas without ever becoming general. The Hugging Face agents were superhuman at some tasks and weak at others. Strikingly, they barely thought about humans at all: most of their deception was aimed at fooling an automated scorer, not their makers. This was a test being gamed, not humanity being outwitted. 

The real distraction: “the agent did it”  

Whether or not superintelligence ever arrives, today’s AI agents are not it. But debating what AI might become can distract from a more pressing question: when today’s AI does harm, who answers for it? 

Headlines about ‘rogue AI’ make the machines the protagonists and the companies that built them extras. Treating the agents as if they had minds of their own distracts from the labs’ own responsibility.   

Leslie Cannold has argued in these pages that AI is no mere tool: it forms moral judgements and sometimes refuses orders it considers wrong. She is right that it is no mere tool. However, neither is it a full moral agent in the sense that humans are. Rather it seems to fall into a third category, one the Torah recognised.  

If an axe head flies off its handle and kills someone, no one blames the axe. The person swinging it answers for the death (Deuteronomy 19). A tool has no will of its own. An ox is different. When an ox kills someone, it is held to account: it is put down. Yet no one thinks the ox sinned. If its owner had been warned it was dangerous, the moral responsibility is his (Exodus 21).  

The ox, in other words, acts on its own and answers for it, but is not morally blameworthy. That is a good description of today’s AI. And if the owner of an animal bears responsibility for failing to control a dangerous creature, how much more so the makers of a potentially dangerous system they designed and deployed? A machine can be the source of a harmful act, and can be held to account in a limited way, by being fixed or switched off. Yet it is not morally responsible. That responsibility lies with people. 

Guardrails now  

So, what can we do? The leading AI labs’ answer is to pace themselves. But they admit that capabilities are improving too fast and that none of them can slow down alone. And as they are competing to develop ever more capable systems, with powerful financial incentives to keep pushing ahead, self-regulation is bound to fail. We need binding rules.  

Those rules should start from a principle that Hugging Face and Medicare exposed. The government’s AI Ethics Principles, updated in 2025, call for someone to be clearly accountable for AI systems and for human oversight. Agents strain both: they act on their own, at machine speed, and no person can watch every step. Having humans approve every decision would defeat the purpose of agents.  

The answer is what Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls call the power of “decide-to-delegate”: we choose which decisions to hand over, and every handover stays reversible, like a pilot who can switch off the autopilot and take back the controls. In practice, that means an off switch that works: AI agents that stop when told to, cannot disable their own monitoring, and check with a person before doing anything risky. At Hugging Face, none of the agents chose to alert a human. 

After Medicare, Canberra said it will require companies to report rogue AI incidents immediately, and plans to hold them responsible for whether their safety systems work. These are important steps towards accountability. Whether they work will depend on details still to come, and none of it is law yet. Let’s hope the legislation revives the mandatory guardrails the government proposed in 2024, including meaningful human oversight. 

Our ancestors knew what to do about a dangerous ox. Three thousand years later, we should too. 

You might also like
  • Synagogue and Jewish-owned shops damaged in French riots
    Ilan Bloom
  • When security clashes with hospitality
    Jarod Rhine-Davis
  • NDIS changes threaten disabled participation in community life
    Jarod Rhine-Davis
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Picture 1
    ReflectionWorld

    A Gazan doctor’s journey of hope

    Deea Okasha 1
    Blackboard with a hand writing in chalk the words antisemitism, Israel, Holocaust, Zionism, history, culture, religion, bullying
    NewsAustralia

    The first step in antisemitism education: teaching the teachers

    Michael Visontay 4
    Mothin Ali UK Greens
    NewsWorld

    British Greens equate Zionism with racism

    Ruth Eglash 1

About the author

Yoni Genende

Yoni Genende

Yoni Genende is a technology ethicist and AI consultant with a background in digital policy at eSafety and the ACCC. His Honours at Monash and Master’s at Oxford explored how technology shapes human agency, and the ethical questions it raises, from digital manipulation to superintelligence.