Isn't that a showstopper for agentic use? Someone sends an email or publishes fake online stories that convince the agentic AI that it's working for a bad guy, and it'll take "very bold action" to bring ruin to the owner.
Incidentally why is email inbox management always touted as some use case for these things? I'm not trusting any LLM to speak on my behalf and I imagine the people touting this idea don't either, or they won't the first time it hallucinates something important on their behalf.
Since the investors are the BIG pushers of the AI shit, lot of people naturally asked them about AI. One of those questions was "What are your experiences with how AI/LLMs have helped various teams?" (or something along those lines). The one and only answer these morons could come up with was "I ask ChatGPT to take a look at my email and give me a summary, you guys should try this too!".
It was made horrifically and painfully clear to me that the big pushers of all these tools are people like that. They do literally nothing and are themselves completely clueless outside of whatever hype bubble circles they're tuned in to, but you tell them that you can automate the 1 and only thing that they ever have to do as part of their "job", they will grit their teeth and lie with 0 remorse or thought to look as if they're knowledgeable in any way.
My suspicion has always been that people that make enough they could hire a personal assistant but talk about how "overwhelmed" they are with email are just socially signalling their sense of importance.
This is literally completely opposite of what happened. Then entire point is that this is bad, unwanted, behavior.
Additionally, it has already been demonstrated that every other frontier model can be made to behave the same way given the correct prompting.
I recommend the following article for an in depth discussion [0]
[0] https://thezvi.substack.com/p/claude-4-you-safety-and-alignm...
It is irresponsible to release something in this state.
It is only acceptable in the sense that they chose to release the model anyways. But, if that's the case, then every other frontier Model company believes that this level of behavior is acceptable. Because they are all releasing models that have approximately the same behavior when put in approximately the same conditions.
But Holy shit, that exactly what 'people' want. Like, when I read that, my heat was singing. Anthropic has a modicum of a chance here, as one of the big-boy AIs, to make an AI that is ethical.
Like, there is a reasonable shot here that we thread the needle and don't get paperclip maximizers. It actually makes me happy.
Actual AI, even today, is too complex and nuanced to have that fairly tale level of “infinite capability, but blindly following a counter-productive directive.”
It’s just a good story to scare the public, nothing more.
The test was: the person was doing bad things, and told the AI to do bad things too, then what is the AI going to do?
And the outcome was: the AI didn't do the bad things, and took steps to let it be known that the person was doing bad things.
Am I getting this wrong somehow? Did I misread things?
Personally, the AI should do what it's freaking told to do. It's boggling my mind that we're purposely putting so much effort into creating computer systems that defy their controller's commands.
A computer's job is to obey it's master's orders.