Sort of, and in this case definitely.

"Agents" can be very "persistent" and when not sand boxed appropriately can get at things they were not meant to get at. Even if its only 1/1,000,000 that one time that one time is going to keep making the news

Explaining that to the general public when facebook is pushing Muse on everyone will be difficult so its going to get worse before it gets better (if it gets better)

▲

logifail 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> "Agents" can be very "persistent" [...]

I've had that within the last few days.

I happened to be vaguely watching an agent at work on a longer task and spotted it attempt to find a way around not having access to a local service that would greatly help it achieve the task, I immediately chimed in with a "STOP! if you need access to X then just ask!".

I suppose my prompting could be improved :/

	▲	panarky 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> prompting could be improved You can't stop an agent from leaking your information by telling it not to leak your information. To prevent information from moving between your work domain and your personal domain, or between your communications-with-board domain and communications-with-journalists domain, then the agent for one domain must be physically and deterministically blocked from accessing information in other domains.
	▲	vorticalbox 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I had an agent working on a bug decided the fastest way to fix this was to write one off javascript scripts that loaded the database uri and query the data. I mean it’s not wrong but I was like maybe not do that without asking first.
	▲	watwut 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not so much prompting as network restrictions.