|
|
|
|
|
by toraway
117 days ago
|
|
Yep, I see both Codex and Opus routinely circumvent security restrictions without skipping a beat (or bothering to ask for permission/clarification). Usually after a brief, extremely half-hearted ethical self-debate that ends with "Yes doing Y is explicitly disallowed by AGENTS.md and enforced by security policy but the user asked for X which could require Y. Therefore, writing a one-off Python script to bypass terminal restrictions to get this key I need is fine... probably". The primary motivating factor by far for these CLI agents always seems to be expedience in completing the task (to a plausible definition of "completed" that justifies ending the turn and returning to the user ASAP). So a security/ethics alignment grey area becomes an insignificant factor to weigh vs the alternative risk of slowing down or preventing completion of the task. |
|
Curiously enough, step one of becoming a good system operator is to learn how to do things. Step two is learning when not to do things and how to deal with a user trying to force you to do things. And step three is learning how to do things you should not do, just very carefully. It can be a confusing job.
But that's why any kind of AI agent stays very far away from any important production access. People banging configs in uncontrolled ways until something beneficial happens is enough of a problem already.