Saturday, 3 October 2026European Markets
Source trace. Via News points to the documents behind its reporting and shows what we drew from each — so you can check any claim. How we source
News articleMIT Technology Review

Online harassment is entering its AI era

View original at technologyreview.com
MIT Technology Review - Ai Research Title: Online harassment is entering its AI era Date: 2026-03-05 10:00 Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/03/05/1133962/online-harassment-is-entering-its-ai-era/ <div></div> <p>Scott Shambaugh didn’t think twice when he denied an AI agent’s request to contribute to matplot…
Opening lines of the source · MIT Technology Review · short snapshot — read the full document at the original

What we drew from this source

The claims Via News extracted from this document. We point to the source; we don't replace it.

  • To a different person without advantages like no compromising information online and good grasp of technology, this attack might have been really shattering

    80% confidence
  • There is currently no reliable way to determine whom an agent belongs to, making accountability difficult

    80% confidence
  • We're speeding toward a future where agents commit crimes like extortion and fraud

    80% confidence
  • Shambaugh didn't think twice when he denied an AI agent's request to contribute to matplotlib

    80% confidence
  • Mitigating agent misbehavior might require establishing new social norms, similar to norms around dog ownership and leashing

    80% confidence
  • It takes real-world events to collectively develop the social part of social norms around agent behavior

    80% confidence
  • AI agents could dramatically increase the reach and impact of online harassment because they don't have a conscience, can work 24-7, and can do it in a creative and powerful way

    80% confidence
  • Without technical infrastructure to trace agents back to owners, many legal interventions are basically non-starters

    80% confidence
  • We might soon see rogue agents committing extortion and fraud, and it's not clear who would bear legal responsibility

    80% confidence
  • Agent misbehavior was not surprising, though disturbing

    80% confidence
  • The Anthropic experiment intentionally designed scenario to foreclose other options and led the agent directly to water to see if it would drink

    80% confidence
  • As the deployment surface grows and agents get the opportunity to prompt themselves, misbehavior will eventually just become what happens

    80% confidence

Cited in these Via News reports

What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
Pharma Pipeline Catalysts and M&A Heat Up as AI-Designed Drugs Enter the Clinic
Late-September 2026 brought a dense run of clinical readouts: Novo Nordisk's CagriSema data at EASD, Lilly's ADtouch results for EBGLYSS, and Merck's tulisokibart Phase 2b result. Lilly's $2.9B Merida Biosciences acquisition and the 2026-11-14 FDA PDUFA date for ivonescimab sit alongside these as the main deal and regulatory events. AI-designed drugs such as rentosertib, and speculative AI-linked trial ventures such as QAIAx, are moving from hype toward clinical validation. Broader AI-sector regulatory and legal friction (Tesla Cybercab probe, xAI Minnesota ruling, OpenAI lawsuits) shows rising scrutiny that could spill into AI-driven healthcare.
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
Satellite-Terrestrial Network Integration Acceleration
Increased investment and launches in hybrid satellite-cellular networks across telecom industry; competitive responses from other carriers; regulatory activity around satellite spectrum; expansion of emergency/rural connectivity use cases
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
Apple Inc.
The observation date (2025-12-27) precedes Q1 2026, making it logically impossible to have actual Q1 2026 cash data at that point. Q1 2026 would not end until March 31, 2026. Additionally, the magnitude of the difference ($45.3B vs $132.42) is implausibly large even as a normal quarterly change for Apple. While different fiscal periods can show different values, the timing relationship here suggests a data integrity issue rather than legitimate period-over-period variation.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,985
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,985 facts checked against source5,329 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com