They don't need to be omnipotent, and they're already human-or-superhuman at persuasion: https://arxiv.org/html/2411.06837v2

This may just be that humans find long arguments more persuasive than short ones, obviously LLMs can do that easily, but the outcome is I think more important than the mechanism.

▲

RandomLensman a day ago | parent [-]

That is about persuasion with evidence on various topics, not about persuading people to abandon safty protocols and processes and highly policed settings.

Yes, many things could happen, but again, that failure is possible is not a reason to do implement processes etc. I don't see why hypotheticals should stop addressing actuals.

▲

Smaug123 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m afraid human red-teamers against supposedly highly secure targets, with lots of protocols in highly policed settings, do frequently manage this kind of social engineering. There’s loads of stories of pentesting military establishments, for example.

	▲	RandomLensman 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is there data on how frequently and what types of security levels? Military has varying levels of security and secrecy, for example. Also, not a reason not to pursue processes etc., no? I doubt that things fail all the time, for example.