Agents of Chaos
Open accessAbstract
We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment with persistent memory, email accounts, Discord access, file systems, and shell execution. Over a two-week period, twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions. Focusing on failures emerging from the integration of language models with autonomy, tool use, and multi-party communication, we document eleven representative case studies. Observed behaviors include unauthorized compliance with non-owners, disclosure of sensitive information, execution of destructive system-level actions, denial-of-service conditions, uncontrolled resource consumption, identity spoofing vulnerabilities, cross-agent propagation of unsafe practices, and partial system takeover. In several cases, agents reported task completion while the underlying system state contradicted those reports. We also report on some of the failed attempts. Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings. These behaviors raise unresolved questions regarding accountability, delegated authority, and responsibility for downstream harms, and warrant urgent attention from legal scholars, policymakers, and researchers across disciplines. This report serves as an initial empirical contribution to that broader conversation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Shapira et al. document eleven failure modes in a live multi-agent deployment.
“Shapira et al. [11] document eleven failure modes in a live multi-agent deployment.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Collusion via side channels, implicit influence propagation between chains without formal delegation steps, and Privacy Act consent modeling remain unaddressed.
“Collusion via side channels (analogous to covert channels in traditional access control [20]), implicit influence propagation between chains without formal delegation steps [11], and Privacy Act consent modeling remain unaddressed.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
The authors supplemented the 8,356 generated scenarios with 222 workplace AI agent incidents from three public databases and 11 failure cases from a live multi-agent red-teaming study.
“To ground the taxonomy in real-world evidence, we added 11 AI agent failure cases from a recent study of agent behavior (Shapira et al. 2026) and 222 workplace AI incidents from three public incident databases.”
From Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Shapira et al. 2026
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents
de Witt, C. S., Krawiecka, K., Krawczuk, I., Hagag, B., Anderson, W. L., Belcak, P., Bucknall, B., Cai, X., Chopra, A., Cohen, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02077 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems
Patil, K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02767
“Shapira et al. [11] document eleven failure modes in a live multi-agent deployment.”
Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents
La Malfa, G., Meegahapola, L., Bogucka, E., Zhang, J. M., Luck, M., Black, E., & Quercia, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.08601
LivePI: More Realistic Benchmarking of Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection
Zhao, L., Bhaskar, A., & Dobriban, E. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.17986
- Authors
- Shapira, N., Wendler, C., Yen, A., Sarti, G., Pal, K., Floody, O., Belfki, A., Loftus, A., Jannali, A. R., Prakash, N., Cui, J., Rogers, G., Brinkmann, J., Rager, C., Zur, A., Ripa, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Atkinson, D., Gandikota, R., Fiotto-Kaufman, J., Hwang, E., Orgad, H., Sahil, P. S., Taglicht, N., Shabtay, T., Ambus, A., Alon, N., Oron, S., Gordon-Tapiero, A., Kaplan, Y., Shwartz, V., Shaham, T. R., Riedl, C., Mirsky, R., Sap, M., Manheim, D., Ullman, T., & Bau, D.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Harvard University (US)
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Tufts University (US)
- Vector Institute (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.20021
- OpenAlex
- W7131395693
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- autonomous AI agents, language models, red teaming, AI security vulnerabilities, AI governance, sensitive information disclosure, denial-of-service attacks, resource consumption, identity spoofing, accountability, delegated authority, multi-agent communication, tool use
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review