Given that the entire industry is in a frenzy to enable "agentic" AI - i.e. hook up tools that have actual effects in the world - that is at best a rather native take.

Yes, LLMs can and do take actions in the world, because things like MCP allow them to translate speech into action, without a human in the loop.

Exactly this. 70% of CEOs say that they hope to be able to lay people off and replace them with an LLM soon. It doesn’t matter that LLMs are incapable of reasoning at even the same level as an elementary school child. They’ll do it because it’s cheap and trendy.

Many companies are already pushing LLMs into roles where they make decisions. It’s only going to get worse. The surface area for attacks against LLM agents is absolutely colossal, and I’m not confident that the problems can be fixed.

I see much more of offerings pushing these flows onto the market than actually adopting those flows in practice. It's a solution in search of a problem and I doubt most are fully eating their own dogfood as anything but contained experiments.

> that is at best a rather native take.

No more so than correctly pointing out that writing code for ffmpeg doesn't mean that you're enabling streaming services to try to redefine the meaning of the phrase "ad-free" because you're allowing them to continue existing.

The problem is not the existence of the library that enables streaming services (AI "safety"), it's that you're not ensuring that the companies misusing technology are prevented from doing so.

"A company is trying to misuse technology so we should cripple the tech instead of fixing the underlying social problem of the company's behavior" is, quite frankly, an absolutely insane mindset, and is the reason for a lot of the evil we see in the world today.

You cannot and should not try to fix social or governmental problems with technology.

That would still be on whomever set up the agent and allowed it to take action though.