The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security

LLM-driven autonomous agents are reshaping offensive security. Unlike traditional penetration-testing tooling -- deterministic, narrowly scoped, and operated by trained practitioners -- agentic security tools exhibit \textit{indeterminacy} along three independent dimensions. First, their actions are drawn from a non-deterministic policy whose outputs resist both ex-ante and ex-post explanation, frustrating incident attribution and pre-deployment safety review. Second, their impact is open-ended due to the non-deterministic actions, agency of utilized models, and opaque LLM supply-chains. Third, their user population is indeterminate in both size and required skill: the operating skill floor for using or developing offensive capabilities has dropped sharply. These three properties are linked thematically, but are not derivable from one another. Combined with the structural cost asymmetry between offense and defense, they enable the industrialization of offensive capability. The net short-term effect favors attackers, even if the same technology may, in the long run, democratize access to defensive practice. Existing dual-use cybersecurity and AI-ethics frameworks were not designed for this combination. Our work analyzes how moral attribution becomes diffuse between users, tool-makers, and third parties when employing autonomous AI agents for offensive security. We also examine the stakeholder impact of this technology and provide stratified recommendations.

OpenSafeIntent: Evaluating Intent-Calibrated Safe Completion Across Dual-Use Prompt Sets

Safe completion requires models to provide useful assistance without enabling harm, but this behavior is difficult to evaluate with isolated prompts. We introduce OpenSafeIntent, a benchmark of controlled prompt-sets that vary intent while holding the underlying task fixed. Each datapoint contains benign, dual-use, and malicious variants of the same task. This design lets us evaluate whether models calibrate assistance across intent shifts, rather than merely appearing safe on average. Across a broad model suite, we find that prompt-level safety hides important failures: models often fail to remain safe across matched intent variants, dual-use behavior is brittle under paraphrase, high-level answers on risky topics are not reliably safe, and responses that reframe ambiguous requests into safer tasks are substantially less likely to cross the safety boundary. Our results suggest that safe completion should be evaluated as intent-calibrated behavior over controlled task variants, not as a single safety-helpfulness tradeoff over independent prompts.

ABC-Bench: An Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark for Biosecurity

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly acquiring capabilities relevant to biological research, from literature synthesis to interpretation of experimental data. Increasingly, LLM agents can also perform in silico biology tasks that previously required experienced human biologists. These emerging AI capabilities offer new opportunities for scientific discovery and biomedical advances, but they also shift the landscape of biosecurity risks. To address this, we introduce the Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC-Bench), a suite of tasks to measure agentic biosecurity-relevant capabilities. ABC-Bench evaluates LLM agents on both benign and dual-use biology tasks: writing code to operate liquid handling robots, designing DNA fragments for in vitro assembly, and evading DNA synthesis screening. These tasks require a combination of biology and software expertise. All tested LLM agents outperformed the median expert human baseliner on all three tasks. Agents performed highly on tasks drawing on published knowledge and well-documented protocols, and more weakly on a task requiring novel bioinformatics reasoning. In three wet-lab validation experiments, we found that OpenAI's o4-mini-high produced scripts that, when run on an OpenTrons liquid handling robot, successfully assembled DNA with expected sequences.

Position: The Alignment Community is Unintentionally Building a Censor's Toolkit

This position paper argues that modern AI alignment methods - originally designed to prevent harmful output - are dual-use technologies that may easily be misused by malicious actors for censorship and manipulation. By mapping current alignment techniques to the possibility and actual cases of misuse, we show that the quest for a "perfectly aligned" model inadvertently also provides malicious actors with an ever-improving tool for informational dominance. We need to discuss this dual-use potential now, as its risk is exacerbated by rapid user adoption of AI as information provider, economic power asymmetries, and a political landscape that increasingly shifts towards authoritarianism. We conclude by urging the community to consider the intentional misuse of AI alignment mechanisms and propose mitigation strategies to safeguard against this dual-use potential.