The semantic arguments that keep coming up with regard to "rogue" agents are nauseating.

You can argue that these companies are being reckless, or that their security sucks, or that they're responsible for damages that these agents cause. That's all fine.

But the agents made decisions which were counter to the intent of the humans directing them. That's the serious problem with all of this. Everything else are downstream considerations. If the agents were properly aligned with the intent of the humans directing them, then the rest wouldn't really be relevant.

Of course, there's a term for this behavior. It's been around for longer than LLMs. It conveys the notion pretty accurately and easily. So having an issue with statements that these agents are going "rogue," to me, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works since it suggests you don't understand how effectively that word works in this context.

previously we described your definition for "rogue agent" as hallucinations - the operator expected a real answer to their question, and the agent went rogue and lied about the answer instead.

but also, ai has been going rogue for decades. the GPS machines of old went rogue all the time, routing drivers into lakes, rivers, and construction, sometimes with deadly results. The operator submitting an address wanted driving isntructions, but instead, the ai went rogue and sent them a bad route