[gkoberger]

I'm down for disliking AI, but I don't know if "overeagerness" is exactly an AI not doing what you want. Even by the sites own definition ("where your agents do what you want to the point of overriding existing permissions/safeguards to complete a task"), it's doing _exactly_ what you want.

[Zxian]

I had updated a GQL schema and wanted my agent to update the frontend to suit. I told it the server was running, that it could run specific commands to regen types, etc.

It got itself in a loop and killed the running backend process, then searched my filesystem for the changes it thought it needed (not the ones I gave it) in order to run its own copy of the backend.

That is precisely _not_ what I _told_ it to do. The other part of this is that I find, unless explicitly told to ask questions, they don't do a good job of gathering evidence before making such decisions. I'd much rather have my agent ask me a clarifying question than start killing processes at will.

[InsideOutSanta]

The word "overeager" implies that it did something the user didn't want in order to achieve the user's stated goals. One example for me was when I pointed out that a feature had a bug, Claude was unable to fix the bug, so it removed the feature altogether to get rid of the bug.

"Eager" is good. "Overeager" is definitionally bad.

[AnimalMuppet]

No, it's not, because not exceeding those permissions and safeguards is part of what I want.

[gkoberger]

Did you explicitly set them and enforce them, though?

[jibal]

You're moving the goalposts.

Being overeager is not what we want. How to prevent it is a different issue.

P.S. The response completely ignores this argument. If I say "fix X" and it does so illegally or destructively or harmfully to myself or others, that's over eager by definition. Again, how to prevent that is another matter.

> I think everyone has different examples in their mind

Yeah, some have examples in mind that go out of their way not to engage the issue -- that's a form of bad faith.

[gkoberger]

I don't think I am. If I say "fix X issue," and it does it in a way I think is overstepping a boundary I wasn't expecting, I don't think it's fair to categorize it as a negative unless I explicitly told it not to.

That being said, I think everyone has different examples in their mind. So I think it's possible we're all arguing over different issues.

[fluoridation]

>I don't think it's fair to categorize it as a negative unless I explicitly told it not to.

That rules shouldn't be broken is implied by what a rule is. If I tell it to not violate its permissions, do I also need to tell it to obey when I tell it not to violate its permissions, and so on?