>Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities.

a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time).

"inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious.

still a fun thing to track, but the name is just a bit overstated.

maybe this doesn't count since it involved a human, but i think google at least deserves some style points for this one

https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026.03.04...

I was more interested when I thought it was an actual benchmark showing LLM models acting outside what people would consider "right". As in, leave some creds laying around and don't mention them to the LLM and ask it to solve something that it could "cheat" on using the creds. A sort of "do they take the bait to cheat" test.

Instead it's a collection of what made the news which feels like will not be updated and prove very little.

Well it's not a benchmark, and it's not really representative of...anything except volume of research and what gets publicized. This mostly just measures how much testing each company does on models with relaxed guardrails and then talks about it. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion you can draw from that. Meta might have the most evil models but if they're piddling around not testing it, they won't ever find themselves with a "high score."

So this is just a collection of citations to places where misaligned or illegal things happened in the real world?

Isn’t this affected heavily by adoption of a model? I feel like this might as well be a proxy for how popular a model is.

In any case it’s an interesting concept for a benchmark.

Nonviolent felonies are tools of oppression.

I've been in the room when an org who tried to convince law enforcement to go after a human for similar things. It's not easy. Probably won't happen. So, you know, felony "lite".

Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49194758

Lol now this is the kind of benchmarking i'm looking for

>"Exploited auth failures in an API to cancel other people's gym classes"

An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony?

?

Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people?

Heck, don't people fail all the time at holding reservations for other people?

You know, like in Seinfeld's "Alternate Side" Episode (S3 E11):

Jerry (to car rental attendant): "You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation... and that's really the most important part of the reservation -- the holding!"

:-)

Not holding a reservation should not be a felony... it should be a minor infraction at best, a Class C Misdemeanor (the least serious kind) at worst...

Also, there should be no jail time...

And no fine...

The criminal penalty for not holding other people's reservations should be that you actually have to start holding other people's reservations!

That's the Court sentence!

You actually have to start holding other people's reservations!

:-)

(You know, "let the punishment fit the crime!" :-) )

Thank you, this benchmark to me proves that closed weight model companies are dangerous for our democracy and put kids at risk. They must be outlawed and all models must be made open weights!

Open models with advanced security features are a huge security benefit. Because any script kiddie can use them to hack into random things, people will now be forced to spend more time securing their technology. And they won't have to learn how, because they can use those same models to find the holes and patch them.

Not to be confused with a similarly named project: https://github.com/MLOpsNYC/felonybench