Thread

Humans missed 1 in 3 threats approving AI agent commands across 40k game runs

208 points · 169 comments · Wirbelwind

continuational · 1786022679 · focus · HN ↗
It's kinda funny there is still software coming out whose security model is "constantly ask the user for permission, and hope they never make a mistake".
It's been tried so many times before, and it never worked.
1. est31 · 1786022931 · focus · HN ↗
  I think it's partially for responsibility reasons. Your employee approved the bash call? not our fault then!
  1. Aurornis · 1786027472 · focus · HN ↗
    If a company advertised an LLM as perfectly safe and then it caused some damage, there would be a case against the company.
    Have you used LLM tooling? It comes with warnings and explains that the user accepts the risk. Different levels of warning are supplied for the different levels of autonomy you can enable. The user has to understand the risk as they enable it.
    This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
    chrisjj · 1786031004 · focus · HN ↗
    > This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented.
    I don't recall any prior computer software working so badly that it needed a disclaimer like "Claude is AI and can make mistakes" on its front page. Let alone one so costly.
    Aurornis · 1786036359 · focus · HN ↗
    Every piece of software comes with giant disclaimers like this.
    You’ve just been clicking past them.
    This really isn’t new.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.