Technology is famously hard for the law to keep up with, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. We have laws for when a person uses a technical tool to obtain unauthorized access, exfiltrate data, or do other malicious things. These don’t necessarily require any specific intent. If you’ve set up an AI tool and pointed it in the direction of hacking without proper airgapping, you’ve probably violated the CFAA if you’re in the US when it’s successful. Other countries generally have similar laws. Prosecutors don’t need to try someone if it’s really ambiguous or unclear what they actually did. Is this really unreasonable under the legal system?
To the extent there’s a gap, it’s the system around the law. Lawyers and judges aren’t technical experts, and may not recognize “it wasn’t me, it was the ai” as the same argument as “it wasn’t me who shot him, it was my gun”, in that it’s usually foolish and unserious, but there can be a convoluted scenario in which it’s a good argument.
Do things with people, whether it’s volunteering, a social group, whatever. Very few of us are happy without at least some social interaction, and sense of community.
Maybe for you that means to speak the languages you’re learning with other people, or join a discussion group for a topic you’re studying. But having the things you do personally anchored in a shared social reality adds a human element that studying more things and doing independent things that are academically good for you just can’t.