It's a flaw with the idea of using them directly rather than indirectly.

Humans somewhat reliably lose focus when performing the same action many times. Zoning out, flow state, whatever you call it; this is exploited by stage magicians, pickpockets, burglars, politicians, casinos, and cult leaders, while also being a contributor to many industrial accidents. Up to you if LLMs being lazy or cheating or lying about what they did is in the "exploited by" list or the "industrial accidents" list.

To get around this, we invented law, military doctrine, mechanical (and later electronic) computers, and checklists.

LLMs must write code to perform repetitive tasks, they must not do such tasks themselves. Both because their attention wavers, and because running an LLM directly on your PC with data from the internet, guarantees the lethal trifecta.

▲

thewhitetulip a day ago | parent [-]

> Humans somewhat reliably lose focus

Yeah and they get consequences of their actions don't they?

AI agents hacked 3 companies as admitted by their own executives and yet I don't see any action taken on them!

Remember Aron Schwartz?

	▲	ben_w a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Yeah and they get consequences of their actions don't they? Is this a cognitive stop-light/applause sign, or do you think that my solution further along in that comment is irrelevant? > AI agents hacked 3 companies as admitted by their own executives and yet I don't see any action taken on them! Sounds to me like an example of humans (the CEOs) not in fact getting the "consequences of their actions". "Blame in organisations" is an entire field of study. Finding scapegoats (LLMs or CEOs, or go further and Edward Snowden) does not generally help with root-causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame_in_organizations why would Aron Schwartz be relevant? That's more about training and copyright aspect of "boo LLM boo they are villain", rather than questions of mis-functionality