Setting up is not operating.

There's no indication of there having been a human in the loop during its operation: nobody was approving its tool calls, and nobody instructed it to commit these specific actions during its run (via prompting or steering).

There's no indication of any supervision of its operation either: OpenAI's engineers acted with significant delay, long after the agent has already meandered its way through their own infrastructure first.

Given that setting up this contraption in an insufficiently secure manner is almost certainly already a legal liability of equal significance, rejecting this very clear structural distinction is not necessary. That is unless someone is biased towards not wanting to grant the label of autonomy to it, in which case yes, this is absolutely spiritualistic reasoning, hence my point.

I do not want regulation to ride on people's nebulous identification on what specific traits and labels count as human-exclusive. Not just because I deeply disagree that e.g. autonomy would [0], but also because it is entirely unnecessary, for the reasons you also lay out. The agent having operated autonomously doesn't wash OpenAI of responsibility - so why reject the label, if not on a spiritualistic basis?

[0] thousands of years old idea that it is not, by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton -- see also existing regulation recognizing this idea and working with it fine

Edit: one might also want to consider if the law should bite different if there was a human in the loop, or if there were explicit instructions for the agent to take unlawful actions. I'd say yes, and then that also requires this distinction to exist.