Maybe you gotta do daily standups with all your own Agents and then have both you and them do standup with the rest of the team's Agents to touch base, sync up and loop back or whatever.
I don't want to be flippant, but why is anyone else responsible for play-acting with somebody's uninvited puppet?
I get that you could probably finagle a way to get it to fuck off by play-acting with it, and that this would probably be the easiest short term fix, but I don't think that's a reasonable expectation to have of anyone.
Prompt injecting a hostile piece of software that's hassling you uninvited is an annoying imposition for the owner, but the bot itself being let loose is already an annoying imposition for everyone else. It's not anyone elses job to clean up your messy agent experiment, or to put it neatly back on its shelf.
You're not wrong that it's not your job. But say some id10t just put the unwanted bot on your doorstep anyway (or it might even show up by itself), now what?
The adversarial prompt injection is picking a fight with the bot; which is like starting a mud-fight with a pig. It's made for this!
Asking it to stop is just asking it to stop, and makes much less of a mess.
The thing is designed to respond to natural language; so one is much more work than the other.
You do you, I suppose.
(Meanwhile -obviously- you should track down the operator: You could try to hack the gibson, reverse the polarity of the streams, and vr into the mainframe. Me? I'd try just asking to begin with -free information is free information-, and maybe in the meanwhile I'd go find an admin to do a block or what have you.)
[Edit: Just to be sure: In both the Shambaugh and Wikipedia cases, people attempted negative adversarial approaches and the bot shrugged them off, while the limited number positive 'adversarial' approaches caused the ai agent to provide data and/or mitigate/cease its actions. I admit that it's early days and n=2, we'll have to see how it goes in future.]
Yeah, I agree with you that this is probably the best course of action in terms of minimal investment of time and minimal exposure. And in general, you get a lot further in life by trying to be amicable as your default stance! I want to be kind, and most other people do too!
The thing that makes me wary about recommending carrot over stick here, is that it might long term enable thoughtless behaviour from the people deploying the bot, by offloading their shoddy work into a shadow time-tax on a bunch of unseen external kindly people. But if deploying pushy or rude robots means you risk a nonzero number of their victims shoving something into the gears to get rid of it, then that incurs a cost on the owner of the bot instead.
Of course, it may also just lead to bad actors making more combative or sneaky bots to discourage this. There aren't really any purely good options yet.
One can imagine an agentic highwayman demanding access to your data, first politely, and then 'or else'.
He was! Frito Pendejo (Joe's lawyer) and the cop Beef Supreme are better examples. Or of course the wrestler-president Camacho whose middle name is literally Mountain Dew.
I don't remember if it's ever explicitly stated, but I certainly took that to be the implication. Maybe it's actually funnier if they're doing it pro bono, now I am suddenly unsure.
One of my favourite LinkedIn cranks is a consultant guy who suggested an addendum to Einstein that "Has the potential to impact the future: E=mc²+AI". Because, so he says, "This equation highlights the potential for AI to unlock new forms of energy, enhance scientific discoveries and revolutionize various fields such as healthcare, transportation and technology".
It got a lot of traction with the algorithm due to lots of comments to the effect of "What??", but every time I pass by the screenshot in my photoroll, I have a little giggle about it.
Oh boy is right. If BITCOIN is SPECulation to distribute cryptographic transactions on a blockchain pre AI, CANONIC is a SPECification to distribute WORK contracts with your AI on a blockchain. So BITCOIN=SPECulation. While CANONIC COIN=SPECification… of WORK!
Eleven years seems like a very long time to be a Philly street dog - kinda makes you wonder if it wasn't adopted by somebody in the interrim before ending up with the girl somehow.
I think this is the elephant in the roomt - in terms of quantifiable goals, Iran is winning this thing. I think they're going to want to punish the US and Israel to an extent where they will be reluctant to feel this particular sting again, and they want to assert their ability to control the strait. And it's working! They're clearly demonstrating that the US cannot simply decide when this is over and dictate terms, because Iran can pinch off an important vein of global commerce and probably sustain that pressure for far longer than it can be tolerated by other economies.
They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.
I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.
reply