[p91paul]

The article author did not even bother to read the article they were basically replying to. Otherwise he would have noticed that the main points the OP was complaining about were not about the agent, but the hosting provider providing an API allowing destructive operations easily, using tokens with no scopes, with backups stored in the same volume as main data, etc. So this article is actually agreeing with the complaints of the original article, just more generically and without spending an effort on it, doing that with a tone that implies the original article writer is an idiot.

[Uhhrrr]

If you look at the article, its title is, "An AI agent deleted our production database. It confessed in writing." To me this seems to be pretty clearly focusing on the AI agent. Then if you read the article, it attributes a lot of actions to the agent, and zero responsibility to the humans running the agent. It seems to be an anti-ad for the person's business.

[p91paul]

I did not say they did not read the title of the article. They clearly did. It's the rest of the content that was lost, such as the long focus on the sloppiness of the API provider

[Uhhrrr]

Looking again at the article, I see that there are about 5 paragraphs about Railway and 30 about the agent (and, again, zero reflection about their own culpability).