Not really, humans are about as easy to trick.

I think that is his point. If you build sycophantic AGI, won't it do exactly as it is told?

bflesch 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is a big difference:

Humans can also be trained to not fall for social engineering, and it reduces the number of successful social engineering attacks.

Anthropic as leader of AI is UNABLE to train their software even though they try, even though they have full-time security staff.

	▲	tjoff 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		To the same extent that humans can be trained, so can AI. For decades we had/have problems of people opening readme.exe that they get from an unknown mail address. AI opens up a new vector for sure where a "trained human" that knows better but the AI they use does not. But AI is not worse than the average human. And of course AI will get better at handling this. Good enough? Maybe not, but humans are not good enough in this area either. Scale is different though so I'm not saying it isn't or won't be a problem (will likely be a huuge problem). But it alone is not a sign of lack of intelligence and humans are exceptionally poor at it too.
	▲	fragmede 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Humans can also be trained to not fall for social engineering That's hilariously wrong. I mean, we do try, but it's far from 100% effective. So then the question is how much better/worse than Anthropic is vs an average human.