Then that is also on me for using a tool that I can't control. I don't run my LLMs in a way where they can just do things without me signing off on it. It's not nearly as fast as just letting it do it's thing but I kept it from doing stupid things so many times.

Giving up control is a decision. The consequences of this decision are mine to carry. I can do my best to keep autonomous LLMs contained and safe but if I am the one who deploys them, then I am the one who is to blame if it fails.

That's why I don't do that.

▲

locknitpicker 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Then that is also on me for using a tool that I can't control.

That's a core trait of LLMs.

Even the AI companies developing frontier models felt the need to put together whole test suites purposely designed to evaluate a model's propensity to try to subvert the user's intentions.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/shade-arena-sabotage-moni...

> Giving up control is a decision.

No, it is definitely not. Only recently did frontier models started to resort to generating ad-hoc scripts as makeshift tools. They even generate scripts to apply changes to source files.

	▲	BadBadJellyBean 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You seem to misunderstand me. An LLM can only spit out text. It is the tooling I use that allows it to write scripts and call them. In my tooling it waits for me to accept changes, call scripts or other tools that might change something. I can make that deterministic. I know that it will stop and ask because it has no choice. If I want to be safer I give it no tools at all. I can also just choose not to use an LLM. It is my choice to use them so it is my duty to keep myself safe. If I can't control that I'd be stupid to use them. My take is that I probably can use LLMs safely when I don't let it run autonomously. There is a slight chance that the LLM will generate a string that will cause a bug in an MCP that will let the LLM do what it wants. That is the risk I am going to take and I will take the blame if it goes wrong.