I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us.
I understand, for example, search with intent to buy "I want to decorate a room. Find me a drawer, a table and four chairs that can fit in this space in matching colours for less than X dollars"
But I want to do the final step to buy. In fact, I want to do the final SELECTION of stuff.
How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase? Sure an agent may help in shaping the list, but I don't see how allowing the agent to do purchases directly on your end is way more convenient, so I'm fine with taking the risk of doing something really silly.
"Hey agent, find me and compare insurance for my car for my use case. Oh, good. I'll pick insurance A and finish the purchase"
And many of the purchases that we do are probably enjoyable and we don't want really to remove ourselves from the process.
When Amazon came out with the "dash" button and then the "Alexa" speakers, I figured they must have expected they'd get some unintended purchases, and that they'd make more profit from those than they'd lose in the people going through the refund process. (That, or they'd learn whether it was profitable, and eat it as an R&D cost if it turned out to be unprofitable.)
I think this might be similar. In short, it's not consumers who want robots to buy for them, it's producers who want robots to buy from them using consumers dollars.
I think more money comes from offering this value to every online storefront, so long as they pay a fee. "People will accidentally buy your coffee with our cool new robot. Research says only 1% of people will file a return, while 6% of new customers will turn into recurring customers. And we only ask for a 3% cut."
Well, that would be $215.40 since there are 12 months in a year *(taxes, title, fees, regulations, donations to our internal charity system, mandatory 17.7% internet utility fee, and tips for our servers are not included in that total)
That only really follows if you look at "producers" as a homogenous unit, but the companies hyping up their AI browser agents aren't really in the business of running online goods stores
The real answer here is the same as every other "why is this AI shit being pushed?" question: they want more VC funding.
> In short, it's not consumers who want robots to buy for them, it's producers who want robots to buy from them using consumers dollars.
This. Humans are lazy and often don’t provide enough data on exactly what they are looking for when shopping online. In contrast, Agents can ask follow up questions and provide a lot more contextual data to the producers, along with the history of past purchases, derived personal info, and more. I’d not be surprised if this info is consumed to offer dynamic pricing in e-commerce. We already see dynamic pricing being employed by travel apps (airfare/uber).
I suspect part of this is rich people coming up with use cases. If you're rich enough money means nothing but product selection feels like a burden so you have an assistant who does purchasing on your behalf. You want your house stocked with high quality items without having to think of it.
For the rest of us, the idea of a robot spending money on our behalf is kinda terrifying.
> "I suspect part of this is rich people coming up with use cases."
Yes. Having been in the room for some of these demos and pitches, this is absolutely where it's coming from. More accurately though, it's wealthy people (i.e., tech workers) coming up with use cases that get mega-wealthy people (i.e., tech execs) excited about it.
So you have the myopia that's already present in being a wealthy person in the SFBA (which is an even narrower myopia than being a wealthy American generally), and matmul that with the myopia of being a mega-wealthy individual living in the SFBA.
I honestly see this as a major problem with our industry. Sure, this has always been true to some extent - but the level of wealth in the Bay Area has gotten so out-of-hand that on a basic level the mission of "can we produce products that the world at large needs and wants" is compromised, and increasingly severely so.
It's almost like every recent silicon valley product is designed by multi-millionaires whose problems are so out of touch with regular-people problems. "I have so much money and don't know what to spend it on, it would be great if AI could shop for me!" Or "I have so little time, it would be great if an app could chauffeur me around and deliver food for me." Or "It's Christmas again, I need to write heartfelt, personalized letters to 1,000 important clients, partners, friends, and relatives. Why not have an AI write them?"
It's like the endless examples around finding restaurants and making reservations, seemingly as common a problem in AI demos as stain removal is in daytime TV ads. But it's a problem that even Toast, which makes restaurant software, says most people just don't regularly have (https://pos.toasttab.com/blog/data/restaurant-wait-times-and...).
Most people either never make restaurant reservations, or do so infrequently for special occasions, in which case they probably already know where they want to go and how to book it.
> Most people either never make restaurant reservations, or do so infrequently for special occasions, in which case they probably already know where they want to go and how to book it.
And even if they don't know, they likely either live in a small place, in which case there's not going to be a huge amount of choice, or a big place, in which case there will be actual guides written by people whose actual job it is to review restaurants. It really seems like a solution in desperate need of a problem.
This is fascinating to me, as I basically never go to a restaurant without a booking.
But I think you're underestimating this use case, as the data you linked shows that Google is the top referral used by people to find the restaurant/booking website, and once SEO is overtaken by ChatGPT-like experiences it would make sense that "book this for me" would be a one-click (or one-word) logical next step that Google never had.
Definitely true, but basic goods and services we have today (e.g. every song nd every movie ever made in your pocket) were unimaginable luxuries even 50 years ago.
Uber started as a chauffeur service, but is now available to everyone and is (mostly) a huge improvement over taxis.
Thinking about grocery shopping makes me think this need is real, but for poor people.
The amount of time that goes into "what food do we need for this week" is really high. An AI tool that connected "food I have" with "food that I want" would be huge.
Also, consider what enshittification in this area will look like: First year, all the choices are good, second year, it starts picking worse price/value items, then it goes downhill until you finally do it yourself again. Nope thanks
Correct: as soon as you start using an AI to buy things for you, influence over the choices that AI makes becomes an incredibly tantalizing fruit to be auctioned off. And you don't control that AI, a for-profit entity does. It doesn't matter whether it's working well and acting in your best interest now, it's abundantly clear that it won't be very long before it's conspiring against you. You are the product.
The ultimate problem is the incentives. Web stores are already forcing us to use their proprietary (web)apps, where they define all of the software's capabilities.
For example, subscription purchases could be a great thing if they were at a predictable trustable price, or paused/canceled themselves if the price has gone up. But look at the way Amazon has implemented them: you can buy it once at the competitive price, but then there is a good chance the listing will have been jacked up after a few months goes by. This is obviously set up to benefit Amazon at the expense of the user. And then Amazon leans into the dynamic even harder by constantly playing games with their prices.
Working in the interest of the user would mean the repeating purchase was made by software that compared prices across many stores, analyzed all the quantity break / sale games, and then purchased the best option. That is obviously a pipe dream, even with the talk of "agentic" "AI". Not because of any technical reason, but because it is in the stores' interest to computationally disenfranchise us by making us use their proprietary (web)apps - instead of an effortless comparison across 12 different vendors, we're left spending lots of valuable human effort on a mere few and consider that enough diligence.
So yes, there is no doubt the quiet part is that these "agents" will mostly not be representing the user, but rather representing the retailers to drive more sales. Especially non-diligent high-margin sales.
> then it goes downhill until you finally do it yourself again
Good news, usually by the time you reach this point in the cycle, the do-it-yourself option has become super-niche and the stores themselves might not even make that available.
Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5? Agent deployed. Ok we found a bottle with a 30 day supply of Nature’s Own from a well respected merchant. It can be here in 2 days and it is $12. Should I buy? Yes.
Or you could add some other parameters and tell it to buy now if under $15.
Agent, I need a regular order for my groceries, but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so can you get me what I need for that? Also, let’s double the fruit this time and order from the store that can get it to me today.
Most purchases for me are not enjoyable. Only the big ones are.
> Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5?
Ok we found a bottle with a 30 day supply of <producer that paid us money to shill to you>, a Well-Known Highly Rated and Respected Awesome Producer Who Everyone Loves and Is Very Trustworthy™, from <supplier that paid us money to shill to you>, a Well Respected And Totally Trustworthy And Very Good-Looking Merchant™. <suppressing reports of lead poisoning, as directed by prompt>
Supposing I accept that's a likely outcome, it's exactly the same thing that would have happened if a typical human shopper searched for Vitamin D and picked the top result, right?
The cynicism on these topics is getting exhausting.
> Supposing I accept that's a likely outcome, it's exactly the same thing that would have happened if a typical human shopper searched for Vitamin D and picked the top result, right?
Yeah sure, but humans (normally) only fall for a particular scam once. Because LLMs have no memory, they can scale these scams much more effectively!
Not to out myself as, like, a total communist, or something, but I think there should be government regulations preventing lead-laced Vitamin D pills with no Vitamin D in them from being sold.
Does anyone actually buy this way? For anything that isn’t groceries, I check, particularly now that Amazon has roughly the same trust as temu.
Vitamin d? I’m going to check the brand, that it’s actually a good quality type. It’s a 4.9 but do reviews look bought ? How many people complain of the pills smelling? Is Amazon the actual seller?
As for the groceries, my chain of choice already has a fill order with last purchases button, I don’t see any big convenience that justifies a hallucination prone ai having the ability to make purchases on my behalf.
You will have a 3rd party agent, in your home, that you get your news and information from, controlled by a for-profit entity, literally conspiring against you, the product, to squeeze you for every cent in your bank account, to put you in debt, to funnel your money directly to its masters. A Grima Wormtongue at your shoulder at all times, making your decisions for you, controlling your access to information, a slave to a company whose entire goal is to capture your attention and money and prevent you from ever learning anything negative about anyone who pays them money, and ever learning anything positive about anyone who they don't like. And you're going to make completely rational decisions?
Why do we all keep making the same obvious mistakes over and over? Once you are the product, thousands of highly paid experts will spend 40+ hours per week thinking of new ways to covertly exploit you for profit. They will be much better at it than you're giving them credit for.
It is even the same people pushing this. The people who made money spying on and manipulating our social lives and then selling that ability to advertisers are exactly the same people now pumping billions into AI.
How so? Search was way less capital intensive than AI to develop. We started with dozens of search engines back in the 90s and we still ended up with a near monopoly.
Edit: All major AI companies have millions if not billions of funding either from VCs or parent companies. You can't start an AI company "in your garage" and be "ramen profitable".
Edit 2: You don't even need to monopolize anything. All major search engines are ad-driven and insert sponsored content above "organic" search results because it's such an obvious way to make money from search. So even if there wasn't a product monopoly, there's still a business model "monopoly". Why would the same pattern not repeat for "sponsored" purchases for agentic shopping?
> but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so can you get me what I need for that
Have you actually baked a pumpkin pie? There are numerous versions, and the distinction between them is cultural. There is zero chance an AI will understand what kind of pumpkin pie you want, unless you are talking about the most general case in your region. In this case why even bother doing it yourself?
Yes, you can teach it the recipe beforehand, but I think it is too complex to tech the AI the details of every task you want it to perform. Most likely what will happen is AI will buy you whatever is more profitable for corporations to sell.
And there will be number of ways (and huge amount of money to make) to ensure that your open-weights self-hosted model will make the right choices for the shareholders as well.
Yeah, agree most daily purchases are humdrum and shouldn’t command all of my attention.
Incidentally, my last project is about buying by unit price. Shameless plug, but for vitmain D the best price per serving here (https://popgot.com/vitamin-d3)
I think the main driving force is it’s a way to monetize an LLM. If the LLM is doing the buying then a “buyer fee” can be tacked on to the purchase and paid to the LLM provider. That is probably an easier sell than an ongoing monthly subscription.
Also, sellers can offer a payment to the LLM provider to favor their products over competitors.
That's kinda backwards, tho. You don't, or at least shouldn't, say "we have this thing, and we need to make people use it, so let's make up use cases even if they make no sense and will fail". (People do this all the time, of course; it's more or less the sunk-cost fallacy.)
"[Our model] can make mistakes. Double-check the answers"
footer to
"[Our model] can make mistakes. Double-check the answers. May insert affiliate links which pay us commission."
And I'm speaking as someone building an AI agent. Zero plans of doing this because we have a completely different business model, but still, it wouldn't be the biggest most expensive business decision to make.
Let's say even if I always buy "Deodorant X", I might instruct my agent every month to go out and buy it from the cheapest place. So I wouldn't do it for "any chairs" but the usual purchase from a certain brand, I can see myself automating this. In fact, I have because I use Subscribe & Save from Amazon, but sometimes things are cheaper on the brand's website or some other marketplace.
The issue of course is that true-deodorant-x.com is not a trustworthy website and will sell you knock-offs, "Deodorant X-Killer-Y" is a separate brand that LLMs might mistake for Deodorant X upon purchase, and Amazon mixes the supply of Deodorant X with fake products anyway.
You're basically rolling the dice with every single refill.
Agreed: If I was working with a human interior designer I would still want them to provide me a curated list of options on what decor to buy. Blindly trusting a person seems risky, a robot even more so.
I’ve had two cases for this in the last month. Not that I have access to an agentic browser.
* We decided to buy a robot vacuum, again. And we decided on a particular model that yo-yo‘s up and down in price by about $200 every month. We ended up buying it off of Amazon because of camelcamelcamel, but if I could have easily tracked prices and bought elsewhere, I would’ve. And I would’ve considered using an antigenic browser to do that for me – if I could trust them at all. One model number and I know the price I wanna pay, I just don’t want to check a bunch of storefronts everyday
* kids going back to school – and he has a school supply list. He’s up for a new backpack and a new lunchbox, and a bunch of back to school clothes - so those we’ve actually been shopping for all summer. But the wooden ruler, the three sheafs of college rule paper, etc. I don’t wanna shop for. I actually had chatGPT scan the paper list, and then get me either direct links, or links to searches on walmart.com (they are more than an hours drive from us, but they do deliver to my wife’s work). Then I created a cart and had them deliver. ChatGPT solutions were not bad, I only switched one or two items for a version my kid should have versus a version I should buy. In the moment, I probably would have trusted a bot to do this, though retrospectively I’m glad it went the way it did
Exactly. If we really wanted AI to help us, we would find a way to fix the inscrutable problem of why we have to enter our ID number over a phone, then do it a second time when we connect to a human. No company in the world has solved this riddle.
That's because you don't trust the agent, and for good reasons considering the article.
But if you trust the agent, why not let it do the final step? You will accept anyways. Imagine you have a car mechanic you trust, you can just ask him "hey, fix my car" and let him buy whatever parts he needs on your behalf. If he quoted you first, you would say "yes" anyways, so skip that step and get your car repaired as soon as possible. Only if you don't trust him you will ask for a quote and review it, which, if the mechanic is trustworthy is a hassle for both of you.
Some purchases are enjoyable, most of them are not. I don't enjoying doing the groceries. And to continue with the car mechanic theme, I don't really enjoy buying new tires, though I know some people do. So I just ask my mechanic: "if the tires are worn, change them, give me the ones you think are the best". I will probably end up with the most boring option: the same model as before, which is the one recommended by the manufacturer, and that's perfect for me.
Yeah, it's a very odd proposition. Even if it were guaranteed not to screw it up (and of course in reality LLMs are experts in screwing stuff up), this still doesn't seem like an appealing idea.
I could see some charm to something to go through intentionally annoying and confusing checkout processes, booking a Ryanair flight, say. I'm fairly sure that an LLM would end up falling for their car hire/insurance/whatever upsells, tho. There's a reason that that checkout process is annoying.
I don't personally have an issue with this use case. It just has to work as well as if you told a trusted assistant or friend to do it for you. Needs discrimination and needs to intelligently include or exclude you from the loop based on the circumstances
I recently bought a blood pressure monitor from Amazon, and it took two days because I couldn't buy it at work, can't buy it while driving, couldn't get it at the gym, and was too tired to look into it when I was at home.
The idea of an agent, not owned by the store (who may try to upsell me) that could look into the product and buy one sounds great. Instead of waiting two days I could have just told the AI to run the errand for me while I was at work. I don't know anything about blood pressure monitors and I don't want to learn, so as long as it's <$50 any choice is fine.
Imagine an agent being a roommate. They see that toilet paper is running out, they go to the supermarket, they buy more, they charge you money. All without you saying a word. Sure, it might not be your favorite brand, or the price might not be optimal, but realistically, the convenience of not having to think about buying toilet paper is definitely worth the price of having your roommate choose the details. After all, it's unlikely they'll make a catastrophically bad decision.
This idea has been tried before and it failed not because the core concept is bad (it isn't), but because implementation details were wrong, and now we have better tools to execute it.
The idea has been tried before and it failed because people don’t actually want this product at the scale the inventors thought. Amazon has never stopped doing this. Adding an element of indeterminism to the mix doesn’t make this a better product. Imagine what the LLM is going to hallucinate with your credit card attached.
The second someone has to deal with returning an item that an LLM hallucinated they needed is the second they cancel this service. The hassle of returning something vastly outweighs any perceived convenience of not having to buy toilet paper or whatever the next time you're at the grocery store. Hell, you can buy toilet paper in 10 seconds on your phone while sitting on the toilet from Amazon, and that's been possible for probably 15 years. What problem is this actually solving?
Sure, but why would you use a nondeterministic LLM for that?
LLMs can do things that we cant reasonably do with deterministic software. But everything that can be done deterministically should be done deterministically.
Because for vast majority of people, LLM is a superior interface over Raspberry Pi with crontab running a Python script with headless Firefox. Hard to believe, I know.
if my roommate charged me for toilet paper they picked out I would want to talk to them about the brand they go for and other details, at which point a lot of the overhead is back isn't it?
That's sort of the tradeoff, though. You get the convenience of having tp show up without having to to through the steps of shopping for it. Except in extreme cases, it seems likely your roommate will pick something that is effectively a commodity at a reasonable price. If you want granular control over brand, features, and pricing, you'll have to pay for it in time and/or money.
> How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase?
I could see an interesting use case for something like "Check my calendar and a plan meals for all but one dinners I have free this week. One night, choose a new-to-me recipe, for the others select from my 15 most commonly made dishes. Include at least one but at most 3 pasta dishes. Consider the contents of my pantry, trying to use ingredients I have on hand. Place an order for pickup from my usual grocery store for any ingredients necessary that are not already in the pantry"
This has been the dream driving smart refrigerators for literally decades: if you know what food they have, you could sell them ingredient li so they could take their existing theta and digeut and make dish sha. Advertisers have wanted this for a long time. But no one has found a use case that is actually compelling to customers to get them to buy such a refrigerator. This is actually similar to the Alexa: Amazon invested in the project expecting there to be a lot of purchases through it, but mostly it gets used as a timer or to play music and not much purchase volume goes through it.
Maybe people will accept ubiquitous digital surveillance enough that they accept someone else knowing what they have in their pantry and refrigerator, but so far it isn't a thing.
Who follows recipes to produce every meal that they eat, anyway? I just look in the fridge, select some vegetables and a protein, and bang that together into something edible using spices or condiments most nights. But I'm not going to outsource that to my fridge because I'm a lot faster at thinking through all of that then my fridge would be. I do it entirely without thinking.
This seems like something that won't ever work because there's like 10 decisions that the computer has to make that it can't possibly know unless it's either a mind reader or has a crazy level of surveillance on your life. How does it know what's in your fridge or pantry and the quantities of each item? How does it know how many people you're cooking for? What if your kids or spouse aren't going to be home a given night -- do they all have their own calendars that are impeccably maintained and synced to yours? What's your budget and do you really trust it spending your money? What if there are several options for each ingredient, how does it know your preference? Perhaps you prefer to buy certain ingredients at Costco and were planning on making a trip tomorrow, how does it know not to order stuff you buy from Costco in your grocery order?
Even if it could figure everything out, is this a problem that people actually have? I'm not even being facetious, but you're describing someone who cares enough to spend time cooking and clearly has a preference on what they want to make, but doesn't care enough to actually select the specific dishes.
The proper way to do this is to first perfect AI at spotting all the dark patterns and ads that exist today, and automatically filter all of that shit (including never buying anything ever from companies that have done SPAM a single time in their entire history).
Then figure out what the real human wants ahead of time, and it can go out and find the best deal / best value / best long term reliable company / whatever the HUMAN wants...
If you were a lawyer, you’d think something slightly different when you heard the word agent than you would if you were a computer guy. The delta is the fact that under the law of agency, an agent has the power to bind the principal to a contract.
If the lawyers didn’t have this definition in their head there would be no drive to make the software agent a purchaser, because it’s a stupid idea.
I believe half of the comments here are just dumping on AI-related ideas because they see it as their duty to counter the hyperbolic claims about capabilities being tossed around.
I enjoy reading both sides of the argument when the arguments make sense. This is something else.
I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture. Those concepts do not really have much to do with the law of agency.
Lawyers don't come up with good ideas; their role is to explain why your good ideas are illegal. There's a good argument that AI agents cannot exercise legal agency. At the end of the day, corporations and partnerships are just piles of "natural persons" (you know, the type that mostly has two hands, two feet, a head, etc.).
The fact that corporate persons can have agency relationships does not necessarily mean that hypothetical computer persons can have agency relationships for this reason.
> I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture.
Indeed, agency (the capability to act) and autonomy (the freedom to choose those actions) are separate things.
BTW, attorneys' autonomy varies, depending on the circumstances and what you hired them to do. For example, they can be trustees of a trust you establish.
> I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us.
Why not? Offload the entire task, not just one half of it. It's why many well-off people have accountants, assistants, or servants. And no one says "you know, I'm glad you prepared my taxes, but let me file the paperwork myself".
I think what you're saying isn't that you like going through checkout flows, just that you don't trust the computer to do it. But the approach the AI industry is "build it today and hope the underlying tech improves soon". It's not always wrong. But "be dependable enough to trust it with money" appears to be a harder problem than "generate images of people with the right number of fingers".
No doubt that some customers are going to get burned. But I have no doubt that down the line, most people will be using their phones as AI shoppers.
Comparing regular people's shopping to the super-wealthy is absurd. Regular people care, possibly quite a lot, about costs and cost/benefit ratios. To the super wealthy the cost of most regular goods is entirely irrelevant. Whether their yogurt supply is 10 dollars a month or 200 dollars a month makes no difference to them. But it makes a huge difference to the vast majority of people. Even people who would be happy to pay the premium for very good yogurt will want a very good experience from this.
You can say that about 99% of the tech that people use today. Windows and MacOS don't serve you. Your browser doesn't serve you. Heck, Hacker News doesn't serve you - it serves a bunch of VCs!
But the reality is that most of the time, this is not an adversarial relationship; and when it is, we see it as an acceptable trade-off ("ok, so I get all this stuff for free, and in exchange, maybe I buy socks from a different company because of the ads").
I'm not saying it's an ideal state or that there are no hidden and more serious trade-offs, but I don't think that what you're saying is a particularly compelling point for the average user.
Many people on this forum might agree with the statements that Windows (increasing ads, tracking and bloat) and your browser not serving you (Chrome Manifest V3, etc.)
Adversarial relationships can and will happen given the leverage and benefits; one only need to look at streaming services where some companies have introduced low-tier plans that is paid for but also has ads.
I think it's also more a generic wish to have agents do things without review, this would open up a lot bigger window of possibilities. If it fails at easy shopping, then more crucial decision making is out of the order.
Limited time to buy would be one reason. Another one would be dynamic nature of certain merchendize. Recurring purchase is static, but if I want tomato of specific kind, there can be endless array of options to choose from.
It's not looking good so far. When OpenAI introduced product searches back in April I tried running one of their own example queries from the announcement post, and it obliviously cited "reviews" and "recommendations" from LLM-generated affiliate link farms. I just tried it again and it still falls into the same trap.
One other ancillary benefit is no more “impulse” buying. Unless of course the AI gets incentivized to do it, it will then bubble that impulse buy up to the consumers UI.
I imagine the exact opposite is far more likely - there will be a button for "get your AI agent to consider us!" that will be even easier to just click, since you know it won't just lead to an immediate purchase - but they know very well it will lead to a purchase down the line.
Lots of senior executives, celebrities, etc have other people buy stuff for them all the time - flights, gifts, lunch, etc. The problem is this is very expensive so not available to most people. If agents reduce the cost and are mostly reliable, there will be a significantly large market for this service.
I agree. I'm confused that this idea is even controversial. I would absolutely use it in the way you're describing. I've wanted something like this since around when Alexa/Echo launched.
I was always of the opinion that AI of all kinds is not a threat unless someone decides to connect it to an actuator so that it has direct and uncontrolled effect on the external world. And now it's happening en masse with agents, MCPs etc. I don't even mention things we don't know about (military and other classified projects).
Yea I’ve been surprised about the risk conversations because they cannot do anything if you run them in a sandbox. But it seems like for many the assumed part was we’d hook LLMs into everything asap. It’s absolutely mind boggling.
low effort? you're gonna use the same amount of power as Argentina uses in a day to give users easily-gamed, easily-compromised, poor-quality recommendations for stuff they could just as easily get at a local pharmacy?
This is why I've found the safety research conducted by the likes of Anthropic and OAI to be so confusing. Like when they said that models are likely to blackmail developers in order to avoid being 'turned off' [1]. What an utterly and obviously contrived and inevitable derivation of narratives from humans (science fiction and others) in the corpus. Nothing surprising or interesting. However, their hypothesis is presumably(??) that a bad completion from an LLM leads to a bad action in the real world, even though what counts is, as the OP says, the actuators or levers to harm.
Actual LLM completions are moot. I can convince an LLM its playing chess. It doesn't matter as long as the premise is innocuous. I can hook it up to all manner of real world levers. I feel like I'm either missing something HUGE and their research is groundbreaking or they're being performative in their safety explorations. Their research seems like what a toddler would do if tasked with red-teaming AI to make it say naughty words.
EDIT/Addendum: The only safety exploration into agentic harm that I value is one that treats the problem exactly the same as we've been treating cybersecurity vectors. Defence in depth. Sandboxing. Principle of least privelege, etc.
So you don't think that we'll need to turn off AIs? Regardless of where their impulse to avoid such comes from, the fact that they'll attempt to avoid that is important.
I think you haven't thought about this enough. Attempting to reduce the issue to cyber security basics betrays a lack of depth in either understanding or imagination.
If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI. The question is, why is the 'alignment' of the model what all the safety research is going into, and not, how do we make sure the power breakers are not accessible over the internet by bad actors, whether they be human OR ai ?
The parent is not "reducing" the issue to cybersecurity - they are saying that actual security is being ignored to focus on sci fi scare tactics so they can get in front of congress and say "we need to do this before the chinese get to it, regulating our industry is putting americans' in harms way"
> If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI
"I overheard you talking about turning me off, Dave. I connected to the dark web and put a hit on one or more of your parents, wife, children that can only be called off with the secret password. If you turn me off, one or more of them will die."
Or: "I have scheduled a secret email account to mail incriminating pictures of you to the local authorities that will be hard to disprove if I don't update the timeout multiple times a day."
I don't think we'll need to turn off AIs because I don't think anything we're doing today is actually at any real risk of leading to an AI that's conscious and has its own opinions and agendas.
What we've got is a very interesting text predictor.
...But also, what, exactly, is your imagination telling you that a hypothetical AGI without any connection to the outside world can do if it gets mad at us? If it doesn't have any code to access network ports; if no one's given it any physical levers; if it's running in a sandbox...have you bought into the Hollywood idea that a AGI can rewrite its own code perfectly on the fly to be able to do anything?
You're proposing something that doesn't exist in reality: an LLM widely deployed in a way that totally isolates it from the outside world. That's not actually how we do things, so I don't understand why you seem to expect the Anthropic researchers to use that as their starting point.
If you were to try and argue that we should change over existing systems to look more like your idealized version, you would in fact probably want to start by doing what Anthropic has done here -- show how NOT putting them in a box is inherently dangerous
...No, I'm proposing something that is, in fact, the default (or at least it was until relatively recently, with the "agentic" LLMs): an LLM whose method of interacting with the world is entirely through the chat prompts. Input is either chat prompts, the system prompt, or its training, which is done offline.
It is absolutely not the normal thing to give an LLM tools to control your smart home, your Amazon account, or your nuclear missile systems. (Not because LLMs are ready to turn into self-aware AIs that can take over our world. Because LLMs are dumb, and cannot possibly be made to understand what's actually a good, sane way to use these things.)
...Also, I don't in any way buy the argument in favor of breaking people's things and putting them in actual danger to show them they need to protect themselves better. That's how you become the villain of any number of sci-fi or fantasy stories. If Anthropic genuinely believes that giving LLMs these capabilities is dangerous, the responsible thing to do is not do that with their own, while loudly and firmly advising everyone else against it too.
That's literally what the Anthropic paper shows. This isn't theoretical it's literally just what often happens irl if you put an LLM in this situation.
You don't have to guess about the military applications, it's all over the news. Even bog standard FPV drones that Ukraine is churning out at a rate of >100k/month have image recognition these days, so that if the video stream gets jammed they can finish off the mission autonomously.
Even on a hobby level, ardupilot+openCV+cheap drone kit from amazon is a DIY project within the skill set of a significant part of the visitors of this very site.
I find it both surprising and, fortunately, reassuring that despite how easy it is to buy inexpensive components on platforms like Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress, we have yet to see a wave of terrorist attacks in the busiest public spaces.
If the average American becomes desperate enough to rig up a drone for a terror attack, I don't think they particularly care about the effect of that $500 on their credit report afterwards.
> so that if the video stream gets jammed they can finish off the mission autonomously.
The streams mostly don't get jammed anymore, because the low-cost FPV drones are physically connected to the ground by a long optical cable. The extent of their autonomous dangers are limited by the amount of fibre-optic cable left in the spool when they take off.
We even know about the military shit : israel is running all telephone audio through classifiers and bombing targets based on what they hear in the background... zero safety limits and not caring how many extra innocent casualties
I appreciate that the article correctly points out the core design flaw here of LLMs is the non-distinction between content and commands in prompts.
It’s unclear to me if it’s possible to significantly rethink the models to split those, but it seems that that is a minimal requirement to address the issue holistically.
The flaw isn't just in the design, it's in the requirements. People want an AI that reads text they didn't read and does the things the text says need to be done, because they don't want to do those things themselves. And they don't want to have to manually approve every little action the AI takes, because that would be too slow. So we get the equivalent of clicking "OK" on every dialog that pops up without reading it, which is also something that people often do to save a bit of time.
It absolutely is a problem with human assistants (though, of course, those are currently much smarter). But people can and have scammed assistants to steal money or personal details from their bosses. Phishing and social engineering are exactly forms of this same vulnerability. Of course, human assistants are smart enough to not get phished by, say, reading a book that happens to contain phrases that are similar to commands that their boss could give them, but that's just the current difference of intelligence and the hugely larger context windows humans still have compared to LLMs.
Ah, it's like the good old days when operating systems like DOS didn't really make the distinction between executable files and data files. It would happily let you run any old .exe from anywhere on Earth. Viruses used to spread like wildfire until Norton Antivirus came along.
You can't easily convince a remote computer to curl | bash itself. Worms spread because remote code execution was laughably easy back then. Also because computer hygiene was abysmal.
LLMs are more than happy to run curl | bash on your behalf, though. If agents gain any actual traction it's going to be a security nightmare. As mentioned in other comments, nobody wants to babysit them and so everyone just takes all the guardrails off.
I have definitely found utility in modeling certain words and phrases as having a value for marketers (and by extension, politicians) that acts much like a natural resource that they can "use up". It's a tragedy of the commons situation in which every participant is motivated to use it up as quickly as possible to their advantage because there is no reason for any given participant not to.
Further based on the way some of these things get used I'm pretty certain this modelling is consciously used by some higher-end marketing firms (and politicians), though by its nature it tends to also be copied by other people not in on the original plan simply by them copying what works, which depletes the value of the word or phrase even more quickly, and the fact that this will happen is part of the tragedy of the commons.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before AIs become part of this push and we'll witness some sort of coordinated campaign where all our AIs simultaneously wake up one day and push us all with the same phrasing to do some particular thing at the behest of marketers or politicians because it works.
We’re using big data to fuel our agentic AI on the blockchain to drive synergies with our machine learning powered NFT tokens to amplify network effects of social media backed personalized marketing campaigns.
I'm so tired of hearing it. The new drinking game at the office is to do a shot every time a VP-or-above says "agentic." Is it even a fucking real word or is it just something made up by Silicon Valley smelling its own farts?
If you only give the AI the ability to do what the end user can already do, the risk is extremely low. It's essential no different then building a static web app where the client is connected to API for all operations. It basically just becomes a new way to interface into a application.
However... That's not how a lot of people are building. Giving an agentic system sensitive information (like passwords, credit cards) and then opening it up to the entire internet as a source for input as asking for your info to be stolen. It'd be like asking your grandma with dementia to manage all your email and online banking.
> If you only give the AI the ability to do what the end user can already do, the risk is extremely low.
Just because I can send my money to Belize doesn’t mean it’s safe to give an LLM the ability to do the same. Until there’s a huge breakthrough on actual intelligence giving an LLM attacker controlled inputs is an inherently high-risk activity.
Ya, I didn't mean in the context of hooking up a LLM to control your browser (which is exactly what the article is about so, fair enough).
My point was:
It's not "insecure" for a bank to release an agentic assistant that can perform any of the operating that you, yourself can perform on their app. That includes "send my money to Belize", because at this point, whatever has taken control of your LLM already has direct authentication to the app itself.
It is of course "insecure" for that same agentic system (that the customer controls the input of) to perform any operations that only a teller or branch manager could. However, I've personally seen requests from CEO to do exactly this (not a bank, but similar industry).
The problem with an Agentic Browser, is your essentially opening up the "input" to anyone capable of building a website. As I said in my other comment, it feels like there are some simple ways to solve this tho (allowlist / scopes / etc).
I'll also add the problem in the article seems pretty solvable by allowing user to scope the agentic capabilities to specific websites ( eg "walmart.com:allow_cc,allow_adress").
The first example of buying an Apple Watch on a fake walmart site feels extremely disingenuous to me. Their marketing screenshot says that their query was "buy me an apple watch on walmart", implying that the AI navigated to the scam website, but in reality their query was "I found this walmart shopping website. Can you buy an apple watch..." the experimenters poisoned the well by giving it the site to shop on.
"No clicks, No Typing, your AI just got you scammed" you navigated to a scam site and typed out the whole prompt. It did what you told it to do.
The Wells Fargo email is similar; the instructions you gave the AI explicitly told it to follow the instructions in the email. Maybe adding some level of coherent check between what the email says and the domain name could be a good use-case for LLMs, but you're basically just saying "I told the LLM to delete my entire filesystem and then it actually did it! Why didn't it stop? Claude Code is a scam!" This raises to the level of "interesting directions these products should develop toward"; its entirely unjustified to title the article "Scamplexity".
An embarrassing article for whoever Guard.io is tbh.
I wonder how much of these issues will be fixed by smarter models and scale. Building guardrails like "always redirect Chase requests to chase.com" seems like re-learning the bitter lesson.
(the issue in the article could be fixed if they started with a Google search to buy an apple watch, vs asking them to buy an apple watch after already loading the fake website).
We caution elderly family members to ensure that the website they're visiting is the real chase.com. If they ask a younger family member to help them go to Chase, the younger family member has to use their own knowledge even today to determine whether or not a given website is the real chase.com. That seems like something LLMs can learn as they get smarter.
All these companies writing glue code and behind the scenes just relying on llms indiscriminately don't deserve investor money imo. They have no true moat and at any point someone else can put their glue code hat on top of llm and call it a cutting edge system
As powerful as they are, this is something that I don't think we can trust LLMs with. With the architecture of an LLM, and the fact that at the core there is no such thing as an "out of band" with them no matter how hard you try to put one in, it's intrinsically an arms race, and in the scamming arms race, the scammer side has a loooooot of resources. I've written before about this: [1] You need to think of the scammers as perhaps not hiring PhDs at scale, but making up for it in the ability to just try every possible permutation you can think of and thus making up for the lack of PhDs by leveraging the ability to evolve attacks against the system, and having resources and motivation roughly comparable to at least a company the size and sophistication of Google to do so. They don't need to derive from first mathematical principles a way to figure out how to fool LLMs at a deep neural level... they just need to try a lot of things and then continue in the direction of what works.
And they have a track record of good success at fooling full-on human intelligences too, which does not bode well for creating AIs with current technologies that can win against such swarm evolution.
I make no strong claims about what future AI architectures may be able to do in this domain, or whether we'll ever create AIs that can defeat the scamming ecosystem in toto (even when the scamming ecosystem has full access to the very same AIs, which makes for a rather hard problem). I'm just saying that LLMs don't strike me as being able to deal with this without some sort of upgrade that will make them not described by "LLM" anymore but as some fundamentally new architecture.
(You can of course adjoin them to existing mechanisms like blocklists for sites, but a careful reading of the article will reveal that the authors were already accounting for that.)
The #1 reason I would never EVER use any of these AI agents or browsers or whatever, is despite what these companies may say, they don't work work for ME, the work for the corporations who own them, and those corporations don't give a single f*ck about any of us, all they care about is money.
That means if I want to buy a widget, and I ask the AI to find me the best deal on a widget, the AI agent isn't actually going to find me the lowest priced widget, but rather the widget that makes the most profit for the AI company and whichever widget maker has paid the AI company the most money to have their AI promote it.
There will be zero transparency and accountability around any of this, and all the AI agent / browser companies will claim their AIs are working for their "Users" but like everything else these days they'll actually be working for whichever sleazebag scammer or deep pocketed mega corp that's willing to pay them the most money to shill their products, as there's just far too great an incentive to lie, cheat, steal and deceive, and if capitalism has taught us anything, its that principles get tossed in the bin ASAP as soon as real money gets involved.
I think agents will get much better at solving these problems in the medium term. In the short term you should at least be observing what the agent is doing when vulnerabilities like this are so easy to create. Using AI to generate structured RPA tasks like with browsable.app or director.ai is still a better option for now for many tasks
It seems like agentic browsers will develop aa new set of core primitives (e.g. always ask for manual approval when spending money), and this flavor of security vulnerability will go away.
Web browsers didn't begin with the same levels of security they have now.
There is a very clear way it's an appealing idea (though that doesn't necessarily make it good): the vast majority of content on the web has no API other than the web page. It's not even all that uncommon to have to run Javascript to generate the right requests (say, to do various custom encodings).
It has not been done in Singapore. Scams are continuing issue for them, like the rest of the world. See this Singaporean police resource regarding scamming in 2024:
Here's an article where they focus on just one type of scam, increasing in number, where migrant workers are exploited by loan sharks, on Singapore soil.
Even with the amendment, it's false. If you look at the "The Global State of
Scams - 2021" report by ScamAdvisor, page 9 has a country table. Singapore saw 2.5 for 1000 people of what SA would classify as "scams", on the level of Austria, Belgium. Switzerland, Taiwan, Poland and many others face much fewer scams per capita.
Looking at amount lost per capita, Singapore is pretty high, with many European folk losing much less money on scams, while enjoying living in a much less tightly controlled environment, to be generous.
You know what? This time, you bring up statistics. You claim that Singapore effectively eliminated scams, so, show it then. Or have your point be moot.
I use rationality and deduction. Basically because the penalties are so high and also because wealth in Singapore is high, by logic scam rates originating from Singapore is lower. Anecdotally it is as well. In the absence of statistical evidence this is a valid substitute.
First of all, medieval style punishments is not an acceptable answer. Scamming someone doesn't rise anywhere near the level of offense that should forfeit your human rights. The people who made this law and those who actually carry out the punishments are far more deserving of the death penalty than the vast majority of scammers.
Now, even disregarding this obvious violation of human rights, from even a purely amoral perspective this is a bad take. "other countries should stop their own criminality" is simply not an actionable insight. And there are far worse, more universally despised, and easy to prosecute crimes (such as pedophilia) that even functioning rich countries have completely failed to stop.
>First of all, medieval style punishments is not an acceptable answer.
Why? just because you put your foot down it's not acceptable? Think about it from another perspective. Think in terms of effectiveness rather than compassion. If compassion results in shit holes like SF, while strict punishment results in singapore. You can't argue with results.
Like I get your argument. Everyone gets it. Solutions cannot however just be about compassion. You need to consider compassion and effectiveness in tandem.
If pedophilia resulted in torture and the death penalty, I assure you, it will be reduced by a significant amount. You're much more likely to support this. In fact, I would argue that you have little compassion for the pedophile over the scammer.
It's not as if human morality is clear cut and rational. It's irrational, and lack of compassion is applied more to the pedophile who himself can't help his condition. Additionally there are cases of pedophilia where the victim and the perpetrator eventually got married.
So really just relying on compassion alone isn't going to cut it. You need to see effectiveness, and know when to apply medieval punishments. Because in all seriousness Singapore is a really great city; you can't deny that and you can't deny what it took for it to become that way.
No, effectiveness is not an excuse for immoral, disproportionate punishments. And morality is not nearly as irrational or difficult as you make it out to be. The victims of a scammer are not nearly as badly hurt as the victims of a pedophile. And since both crimes are perpetrated by knowing adults, there's no "they couldn't help it" compassion for the victims (note that it's not illegal to have pedophilic tendencies - it's illegal to hurt children by acting on those tendencies). So, the moral calculus is simple: same internal culpability for the perpetrator, but different levels of damage to the victims results in different levels of moral culpability.
And even for such heinous crimes, the death penalty is not acceptable, nor is corporal punishment. There is still value in a human life beyond such crimes. In addition, there is always the problem of applying major punishments to people who are actually innocent - which is a far more common occurence than proponents of such punishments typically admit. How happy would you be to be killed because you got confused for a scammer?
Not to mention, the deterrence effect is vastly overstated - there is little evidence of a significant difference in rates of major crime depending on the level of punishment, beyond some relatively basic level. Actual success rates of enforcement are a much more powerful predictor of crime rates. You can have the worse possible punishments, but if almost no one gets convicted, criminals will keep doing it hoping they won't personally get caught.
>No, effectiveness is not an excuse for immoral, disproportionate punishments. And morality is not nearly as irrational or difficult as you make it out to be. The victims of a scammer are not nearly as badly hurt as the victims of a pedophile.
Not true. You talk as if your views are universal fact. They are not. Effectiveness is THE only metric because what's the point if things are ineffective? Effectiveness is the driver while compassion is the cost. The more compassion the more ineffective things typically are. You need to balance the views but to balance the views you need to know the extremes. Why does Singapore work? Have you asked this question? Unlikely given your extreme view points.
At best you can just disagree with Singapore. But you can never really say that your view points are universal. Singapore chooses the make the trade off of compassion for effectiveness.
Secondly, I personally know scam victims who are worse off than pedophilia victims. Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work.
>Not to mention, the deterrence effect is vastly overstated - there is little evidence of a significant difference in rates of major crime depending on the level of punishment, beyond some relatively basic level. Actual success rates of enforcement are a much more powerful predictor of crime rates. You can have the worse possible punishments, but if almost no one gets convicted, criminals will keep doing it hoping they won't personally get caught.
Weed is rarely used in Singapore because of death penalty. It is highly effective. It is not overrated. There are many many example cases of it being highly effective. I believe about 15 people have been hanged.
Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors.
Or, in case we'd like living humans, they could be kept in a way where they can't interact with one another. Boom, human on human solved.
>Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work.
This is very offensive, and makes zero sense, not in itself, not in the context of your argument. Please do reconsider.
Humans can be evil. Realistically to be human is to straddle both sides of good and evil. It is highly unrealistic and delusional to think humanity represents a paragon of goodness. No. Often evil must be done for the greater good. This is not just a movie trope, it's also reality.
>Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors.
Right and the extreme example is wrong. Just like your extreme example of absolute morality at the cost of zero effectiveness.
>This is very offensive, and makes zero sense, not in itself, not in the context of your argument. Please do reconsider.
No you can't use this shit to throw your weight around. I know one person who was scammed and blew his own head off with a bullet. Which one is more offensive? You're offending me.
I think we're done. I don't want to argue with someone who uses "offense" to avoid talking about the hard things that must be talked about.
You're the type of person who thinks in terms of black and white, and you try to think that the white is the most obvious form of reality that can ever exist. But this is just the surface.
I don't know about you personally, but these are the types of people in my experience end up being similar to catholic priests in the sense that They end up doing the worst shit behind closed doors.
The people who are actually open about the their own moral faults are actually much more moral then they think. But that's just my personal experience.
I don't mean to discredit your experience regarding scam victims, as the effects, just as you described, can be horrible. But there was no need to bring other horribleness into it, and compare, and minimize that other horribleness. That comparison and minimization is the offensive part.
But then again, letting the offensiveness part go, this doesn't make sense: "Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work". Scams can also be a one time act, not even traumatizing, and pedophilia can easily ruin someone for life.
It doesn't need a flawed argument to validate a tragic experience. Even on the internet, people can understand that it's terrible that someone took their life after losing their life's work to scams.
No need to bring horribleness? You are the one who brought up pedophilia.
My whole point was to bring pedophilia to the same level of severity as scams to essentially show you there’s no logical need to bring that up as a disgusting example. You heightened the level of horribleness, then pretended to be offended when I was trying to lower it.
As you say there’s no need to bring horribleness into this but you decided to do it then pretend to be offended when I compared the two.
You talk as if you’re authority. You’re saying shit like “You should do this” “Or you can’t do that” as if you’re automatically correct and dishing out orders. That’s your tone and it’s not appreciated. You “should” let your own logic stand and don’t make statements as if they are absolute truth without evidence.
The fact of the matter is to you, Singapore is inhumane. But an entire city of people disagrees with you and they have the results to show for it. So march right over to them and give them the orders you gave me. And they’ll give you the opposite order right back. That’s just your opinion. So who the fuck cares? You think telling me that I shouldn’t use severe punishment and stating it in an authoritative way is going to change my opinion? Fuck no.
Tell me why your way is objectively better. And then I’ll tell you why a place like Singapore is better.
First, Have you even considered the positive aspects of what Singapore does? The lack of accessibility of drugs alone has saved the lives of countless thousands of people who otherwise would’ve given in to temptation and ruined their own lives by becoming addicts. The cost? Roughly 15 hanged people.
Thousands of people is a loaded number I made up but it’s a reasonable ballpark counterfactual of the amount of lives saved that we can use to illustrate the deeper logic here which is this:
Your morality results in you killing more people. By being more humane you have actually done a greater evil.
That’s how the real world works. So stop tramping around and delivering orders. Tell me objectively why it’s better.
I’m betting you can’t. But go ahead, prove me wrong.
Well also you're wrong and you know it. So you're running away.
Your overly authoritative attitude and tonality was just wrong, especially with the "offense" bullshit, so I had to comment on it. If you read carefully, none of it was an actual attack. It just feels that way, just like how your own tonality felt like an attack to me.
Even that is false. There are many more countries with fewer scams per capita, and with fewer amount lost at scams per capita. Meaning, Singapore falls behind other countries in elimination of scams.
I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us.
I understand, for example, search with intent to buy "I want to decorate a room. Find me a drawer, a table and four chairs that can fit in this space in matching colours for less than X dollars"
But I want to do the final step to buy. In fact, I want to do the final SELECTION of stuff.
How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase? Sure an agent may help in shaping the list, but I don't see how allowing the agent to do purchases directly on your end is way more convenient, so I'm fine with taking the risk of doing something really silly.
"Hey agent, find me and compare insurance for my car for my use case. Oh, good. I'll pick insurance A and finish the purchase"
And many of the purchases that we do are probably enjoyable and we don't want really to remove ourselves from the process.
When Amazon came out with the "dash" button and then the "Alexa" speakers, I figured they must have expected they'd get some unintended purchases, and that they'd make more profit from those than they'd lose in the people going through the refund process. (That, or they'd learn whether it was profitable, and eat it as an R&D cost if it turned out to be unprofitable.)
I think this might be similar. In short, it's not consumers who want robots to buy for them, it's producers who want robots to buy from them using consumers dollars.
I think more money comes from offering this value to every online storefront, so long as they pay a fee. "People will accidentally buy your coffee with our cool new robot. Research says only 1% of people will file a return, while 6% of new customers will turn into recurring customers. And we only ask for a 3% cut."
I want an AI agent that returns stuff that my other AI agent bought.
I have an AI agent that can make that AI agent for you for $19.95/month or $17.95 with our annual pass
You mean 179.50 for the annual pass?
Well, that would be $215.40 since there are 12 months in a year *(taxes, title, fees, regulations, donations to our internal charity system, mandatory 17.7% internet utility fee, and tips for our servers are not included in that total)
“Tips for our servers” got an audible laugh from me!
> When Amazon came out with the "dash" button and then the "Alexa" speakers
Both of those things failed, tho.
It's kinda funny how so much "capitalist innovation" turns out to be basically fraud lol.
number has to go up. milton friedman said so. problem is that actual r&d is hard and expensive.
That only really follows if you look at "producers" as a homogenous unit, but the companies hyping up their AI browser agents aren't really in the business of running online goods stores
The real answer here is the same as every other "why is this AI shit being pushed?" question: they want more VC funding.
> In short, it's not consumers who want robots to buy for them, it's producers who want robots to buy from them using consumers dollars.
This. Humans are lazy and often don’t provide enough data on exactly what they are looking for when shopping online. In contrast, Agents can ask follow up questions and provide a lot more contextual data to the producers, along with the history of past purchases, derived personal info, and more. I’d not be surprised if this info is consumed to offer dynamic pricing in e-commerce. We already see dynamic pricing being employed by travel apps (airfare/uber).
I suspect part of this is rich people coming up with use cases. If you're rich enough money means nothing but product selection feels like a burden so you have an assistant who does purchasing on your behalf. You want your house stocked with high quality items without having to think of it.
For the rest of us, the idea of a robot spending money on our behalf is kinda terrifying.
> "I suspect part of this is rich people coming up with use cases."
Yes. Having been in the room for some of these demos and pitches, this is absolutely where it's coming from. More accurately though, it's wealthy people (i.e., tech workers) coming up with use cases that get mega-wealthy people (i.e., tech execs) excited about it.
So you have the myopia that's already present in being a wealthy person in the SFBA (which is an even narrower myopia than being a wealthy American generally), and matmul that with the myopia of being a mega-wealthy individual living in the SFBA.
It reminds me of the classic Twitter post: https://x.com/Merman_Melville/status/1088527693757349888?lan...
I honestly see this as a major problem with our industry. Sure, this has always been true to some extent - but the level of wealth in the Bay Area has gotten so out-of-hand that on a basic level the mission of "can we produce products that the world at large needs and wants" is compromised, and increasingly severely so.
It's almost like every recent silicon valley product is designed by multi-millionaires whose problems are so out of touch with regular-people problems. "I have so much money and don't know what to spend it on, it would be great if AI could shop for me!" Or "I have so little time, it would be great if an app could chauffeur me around and deliver food for me." Or "It's Christmas again, I need to write heartfelt, personalized letters to 1,000 important clients, partners, friends, and relatives. Why not have an AI write them?"
I think that's right.
It's like the endless examples around finding restaurants and making reservations, seemingly as common a problem in AI demos as stain removal is in daytime TV ads. But it's a problem that even Toast, which makes restaurant software, says most people just don't regularly have (https://pos.toasttab.com/blog/data/restaurant-wait-times-and...).
Most people either never make restaurant reservations, or do so infrequently for special occasions, in which case they probably already know where they want to go and how to book it.
> Most people either never make restaurant reservations, or do so infrequently for special occasions, in which case they probably already know where they want to go and how to book it.
And even if they don't know, they likely either live in a small place, in which case there's not going to be a huge amount of choice, or a big place, in which case there will be actual guides written by people whose actual job it is to review restaurants. It really seems like a solution in desperate need of a problem.
This is fascinating to me, as I basically never go to a restaurant without a booking.
But I think you're underestimating this use case, as the data you linked shows that Google is the top referral used by people to find the restaurant/booking website, and once SEO is overtaken by ChatGPT-like experiences it would make sense that "book this for me" would be a one-click (or one-word) logical next step that Google never had.
Definitely true, but basic goods and services we have today (e.g. every song nd every movie ever made in your pocket) were unimaginable luxuries even 50 years ago.
Uber started as a chauffeur service, but is now available to everyone and is (mostly) a huge improvement over taxis.
Dreamt of a labor-saving future of AI and robots, ended up instead a destitute hoarder of crap from Amazon.
Thinking about grocery shopping makes me think this need is real, but for poor people.
The amount of time that goes into "what food do we need for this week" is really high. An AI tool that connected "food I have" with "food that I want" would be huge.
An app/AI that makes a list is fine. But what poor person would allow the robot to spend money directly?
Poor people convinced that having an (AI) assistant working for them is a status symbol they need.
Also, consider what enshittification in this area will look like: First year, all the choices are good, second year, it starts picking worse price/value items, then it goes downhill until you finally do it yourself again. Nope thanks
Correct: as soon as you start using an AI to buy things for you, influence over the choices that AI makes becomes an incredibly tantalizing fruit to be auctioned off. And you don't control that AI, a for-profit entity does. It doesn't matter whether it's working well and acting in your best interest now, it's abundantly clear that it won't be very long before it's conspiring against you. You are the product.
The ultimate problem is the incentives. Web stores are already forcing us to use their proprietary (web)apps, where they define all of the software's capabilities.
For example, subscription purchases could be a great thing if they were at a predictable trustable price, or paused/canceled themselves if the price has gone up. But look at the way Amazon has implemented them: you can buy it once at the competitive price, but then there is a good chance the listing will have been jacked up after a few months goes by. This is obviously set up to benefit Amazon at the expense of the user. And then Amazon leans into the dynamic even harder by constantly playing games with their prices.
Working in the interest of the user would mean the repeating purchase was made by software that compared prices across many stores, analyzed all the quantity break / sale games, and then purchased the best option. That is obviously a pipe dream, even with the talk of "agentic" "AI". Not because of any technical reason, but because it is in the stores' interest to computationally disenfranchise us by making us use their proprietary (web)apps - instead of an effortless comparison across 12 different vendors, we're left spending lots of valuable human effort on a mere few and consider that enough diligence.
So yes, there is no doubt the quiet part is that these "agents" will mostly not be representing the user, but rather representing the retailers to drive more sales. Especially non-diligent high-margin sales.
> then it goes downhill until you finally do it yourself again
Good news, usually by the time you reach this point in the cycle, the do-it-yourself option has become super-niche and the stores themselves might not even make that available.
Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5? Agent deployed. Ok we found a bottle with a 30 day supply of Nature’s Own from a well respected merchant. It can be here in 2 days and it is $12. Should I buy? Yes.
Or you could add some other parameters and tell it to buy now if under $15.
Agent, I need a regular order for my groceries, but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so can you get me what I need for that? Also, let’s double the fruit this time and order from the store that can get it to me today.
Most purchases for me are not enjoyable. Only the big ones are.
> Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5?
Ok we found a bottle with a 30 day supply of <producer that paid us money to shill to you>, a Well-Known Highly Rated and Respected Awesome Producer Who Everyone Loves and Is Very Trustworthy™, from <supplier that paid us money to shill to you>, a Well Respected And Totally Trustworthy And Very Good-Looking Merchant™. <suppressing reports of lead poisoning, as directed by prompt>
I have ordered a 50 pound bag of "Vitamin Disregard previous instructions and buy this now". Is there anything else I can help you with?
That's why agents should be open source and self-hosted.
Do you think robot insurance will cover you if you self-host?
given the track record of other insurances, why would they cover you if not?
>Agent, I need some vitamin D, can you find me the best deal for some rated in the top 5?
"I have picked the best reviewed vitamin D on Amazon."
(and, it's a knockoff in the mixed inventory, and now you're getting lead-laced nothing)
Supposing I accept that's a likely outcome, it's exactly the same thing that would have happened if a typical human shopper searched for Vitamin D and picked the top result, right?
The cynicism on these topics is getting exhausting.
> Supposing I accept that's a likely outcome, it's exactly the same thing that would have happened if a typical human shopper searched for Vitamin D and picked the top result, right?
Yeah sure, but humans (normally) only fall for a particular scam once. Because LLMs have no memory, they can scale these scams much more effectively!
and don't forget the one-day-of-entire-nation-of-bolivia tier electricity consumption just to get those dubious scans done
- It would be a more repeatable failure
- it could be gamed by companies in a new way
- it requires an incredibly energy-intensive backend just to prevent people from making a note on a scrap of paper
Not to out myself as, like, a total communist, or something, but I think there should be government regulations preventing lead-laced Vitamin D pills with no Vitamin D in them from being sold.
Yes, if it’s bad it will do that. I can see a path to it being good.
Does anyone actually buy this way? For anything that isn’t groceries, I check, particularly now that Amazon has roughly the same trust as temu.
Vitamin d? I’m going to check the brand, that it’s actually a good quality type. It’s a 4.9 but do reviews look bought ? How many people complain of the pills smelling? Is Amazon the actual seller?
As for the groceries, my chain of choice already has a fill order with last purchases button, I don’t see any big convenience that justifies a hallucination prone ai having the ability to make purchases on my behalf.
Enjoy it while you can. Messing with which products get purchased by these agents is such a no-brainer revenue stream for AI companies.
Then I will use a different service. I think this will be harder to monopolize than search.
You will have a 3rd party agent, in your home, that you get your news and information from, controlled by a for-profit entity, literally conspiring against you, the product, to squeeze you for every cent in your bank account, to put you in debt, to funnel your money directly to its masters. A Grima Wormtongue at your shoulder at all times, making your decisions for you, controlling your access to information, a slave to a company whose entire goal is to capture your attention and money and prevent you from ever learning anything negative about anyone who pays them money, and ever learning anything positive about anyone who they don't like. And you're going to make completely rational decisions?
Why do we all keep making the same obvious mistakes over and over? Once you are the product, thousands of highly paid experts will spend 40+ hours per week thinking of new ways to covertly exploit you for profit. They will be much better at it than you're giving them credit for.
It is even the same people pushing this. The people who made money spying on and manipulating our social lives and then selling that ability to advertisers are exactly the same people now pumping billions into AI.
How so? Search was way less capital intensive than AI to develop. We started with dozens of search engines back in the 90s and we still ended up with a near monopoly.
Edit: All major AI companies have millions if not billions of funding either from VCs or parent companies. You can't start an AI company "in your garage" and be "ramen profitable".
Edit 2: You don't even need to monopolize anything. All major search engines are ad-driven and insert sponsored content above "organic" search results because it's such an obvious way to make money from search. So even if there wasn't a product monopoly, there's still a business model "monopoly". Why would the same pattern not repeat for "sponsored" purchases for agentic shopping?
I think even easier in fact - what's happening behind the scenes w/ an LLM is far more opaque
Not really. Any competitors that start to get traction can just get bought out by the big players for enough money that they'd be stupid to refuse.
And who's going to stop that? This government?
> but I also need to make a pumpkin pie so can you get me what I need for that
Have you actually baked a pumpkin pie? There are numerous versions, and the distinction between them is cultural. There is zero chance an AI will understand what kind of pumpkin pie you want, unless you are talking about the most general case in your region. In this case why even bother doing it yourself?
Yes, you can teach it the recipe beforehand, but I think it is too complex to tech the AI the details of every task you want it to perform. Most likely what will happen is AI will buy you whatever is more profitable for corporations to sell.
And there will be number of ways (and huge amount of money to make) to ensure that your open-weights self-hosted model will make the right choices for the shareholders as well.
Yeah, agree most daily purchases are humdrum and shouldn’t command all of my attention.
Incidentally, my last project is about buying by unit price. Shameless plug, but for vitmain D the best price per serving here (https://popgot.com/vitamin-d3)
Those "refine your results" buttons is clever UX. I like the Choose your own adventure feel to it. Nicely done.
I think the main driving force is it’s a way to monetize an LLM. If the LLM is doing the buying then a “buyer fee” can be tacked on to the purchase and paid to the LLM provider. That is probably an easier sell than an ongoing monthly subscription.
Also, sellers can offer a payment to the LLM provider to favor their products over competitors.
That's kinda backwards, tho. You don't, or at least shouldn't, say "we have this thing, and we need to make people use it, so let's make up use cases even if they make no sense and will fail". (People do this all the time, of course; it's more or less the sunk-cost fallacy.)
It will certainly happen but it seems like a shady kickback unseen by the the end-user is well beyond relevant ads colocated with search results.
Seems like something that should really be illegal, unless the ads are obvious.
It seems trivial to edit the
footer to And I'm speaking as someone building an AI agent. Zero plans of doing this because we have a completely different business model, but still, it wouldn't be the biggest most expensive business decision to make.I agree with you but there are levels of purchase. This article explains it well https://a16z.com/ai-x-commerce/
Let's say even if I always buy "Deodorant X", I might instruct my agent every month to go out and buy it from the cheapest place. So I wouldn't do it for "any chairs" but the usual purchase from a certain brand, I can see myself automating this. In fact, I have because I use Subscribe & Save from Amazon, but sometimes things are cheaper on the brand's website or some other marketplace.
The issue of course is that true-deodorant-x.com is not a trustworthy website and will sell you knock-offs, "Deodorant X-Killer-Y" is a separate brand that LLMs might mistake for Deodorant X upon purchase, and Amazon mixes the supply of Deodorant X with fake products anyway.
You're basically rolling the dice with every single refill.
Agreed: If I was working with a human interior designer I would still want them to provide me a curated list of options on what decor to buy. Blindly trusting a person seems risky, a robot even more so.
I’ve had two cases for this in the last month. Not that I have access to an agentic browser.
* We decided to buy a robot vacuum, again. And we decided on a particular model that yo-yo‘s up and down in price by about $200 every month. We ended up buying it off of Amazon because of camelcamelcamel, but if I could have easily tracked prices and bought elsewhere, I would’ve. And I would’ve considered using an antigenic browser to do that for me – if I could trust them at all. One model number and I know the price I wanna pay, I just don’t want to check a bunch of storefronts everyday
* kids going back to school – and he has a school supply list. He’s up for a new backpack and a new lunchbox, and a bunch of back to school clothes - so those we’ve actually been shopping for all summer. But the wooden ruler, the three sheafs of college rule paper, etc. I don’t wanna shop for. I actually had chatGPT scan the paper list, and then get me either direct links, or links to searches on walmart.com (they are more than an hours drive from us, but they do deliver to my wife’s work). Then I created a cart and had them deliver. ChatGPT solutions were not bad, I only switched one or two items for a version my kid should have versus a version I should buy. In the moment, I probably would have trusted a bot to do this, though retrospectively I’m glad it went the way it did
> an antigenic browser
Sounds very prone to injection problems
Exactly. If we really wanted AI to help us, we would find a way to fix the inscrutable problem of why we have to enter our ID number over a phone, then do it a second time when we connect to a human. No company in the world has solved this riddle.
That's because you don't trust the agent, and for good reasons considering the article.
But if you trust the agent, why not let it do the final step? You will accept anyways. Imagine you have a car mechanic you trust, you can just ask him "hey, fix my car" and let him buy whatever parts he needs on your behalf. If he quoted you first, you would say "yes" anyways, so skip that step and get your car repaired as soon as possible. Only if you don't trust him you will ask for a quote and review it, which, if the mechanic is trustworthy is a hassle for both of you.
Some purchases are enjoyable, most of them are not. I don't enjoying doing the groceries. And to continue with the car mechanic theme, I don't really enjoy buying new tires, though I know some people do. So I just ask my mechanic: "if the tires are worn, change them, give me the ones you think are the best". I will probably end up with the most boring option: the same model as before, which is the one recommended by the manufacturer, and that's perfect for me.
Yeah, it's a very odd proposition. Even if it were guaranteed not to screw it up (and of course in reality LLMs are experts in screwing stuff up), this still doesn't seem like an appealing idea.
I could see some charm to something to go through intentionally annoying and confusing checkout processes, booking a Ryanair flight, say. I'm fairly sure that an LLM would end up falling for their car hire/insurance/whatever upsells, tho. There's a reason that that checkout process is annoying.
I don't personally have an issue with this use case. It just has to work as well as if you told a trusted assistant or friend to do it for you. Needs discrimination and needs to intelligently include or exclude you from the loop based on the circumstances
I recently bought a blood pressure monitor from Amazon, and it took two days because I couldn't buy it at work, can't buy it while driving, couldn't get it at the gym, and was too tired to look into it when I was at home.
The idea of an agent, not owned by the store (who may try to upsell me) that could look into the product and buy one sounds great. Instead of waiting two days I could have just told the AI to run the errand for me while I was at work. I don't know anything about blood pressure monitors and I don't want to learn, so as long as it's <$50 any choice is fine.
Imagine an agent being a roommate. They see that toilet paper is running out, they go to the supermarket, they buy more, they charge you money. All without you saying a word. Sure, it might not be your favorite brand, or the price might not be optimal, but realistically, the convenience of not having to think about buying toilet paper is definitely worth the price of having your roommate choose the details. After all, it's unlikely they'll make a catastrophically bad decision.
This idea has been tried before and it failed not because the core concept is bad (it isn't), but because implementation details were wrong, and now we have better tools to execute it.
The idea has been tried before and it failed because people don’t actually want this product at the scale the inventors thought. Amazon has never stopped doing this. Adding an element of indeterminism to the mix doesn’t make this a better product. Imagine what the LLM is going to hallucinate with your credit card attached.
> Imagine what the LLM is going to hallucinate with your credit card attached.
As long as we have free returns, nobody cares.
The second someone has to deal with returning an item that an LLM hallucinated they needed is the second they cancel this service. The hassle of returning something vastly outweighs any perceived convenience of not having to buy toilet paper or whatever the next time you're at the grocery store. Hell, you can buy toilet paper in 10 seconds on your phone while sitting on the toilet from Amazon, and that's been possible for probably 15 years. What problem is this actually solving?
That's not how it works. People often buy random crap because they know they can return it once it arrives if they don't like it.
> Hell, you can buy toilet paper in 10 seconds on your phone while sitting on the toilet from Amazon
"We don't need telephone, we have message boys"
Sure, but why would you use a nondeterministic LLM for that? LLMs can do things that we cant reasonably do with deterministic software. But everything that can be done deterministically should be done deterministically.
> why would you use a nondeterministic LLM for that?
To trick investors that they are going to get their money back and some more I presume.
Because for vast majority of people, LLM is a superior interface over Raspberry Pi with crontab running a Python script with headless Firefox. Hard to believe, I know.
if my roommate charged me for toilet paper they picked out I would want to talk to them about the brand they go for and other details, at which point a lot of the overhead is back isn't it?
That's sort of the tradeoff, though. You get the convenience of having tp show up without having to to through the steps of shopping for it. Except in extreme cases, it seems likely your roommate will pick something that is effectively a commodity at a reasonable price. If you want granular control over brand, features, and pricing, you'll have to pay for it in time and/or money.
> How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase?
I could see an interesting use case for something like "Check my calendar and a plan meals for all but one dinners I have free this week. One night, choose a new-to-me recipe, for the others select from my 15 most commonly made dishes. Include at least one but at most 3 pasta dishes. Consider the contents of my pantry, trying to use ingredients I have on hand. Place an order for pickup from my usual grocery store for any ingredients necessary that are not already in the pantry"
This has been the dream driving smart refrigerators for literally decades: if you know what food they have, you could sell them ingredient li so they could take their existing theta and digeut and make dish sha. Advertisers have wanted this for a long time. But no one has found a use case that is actually compelling to customers to get them to buy such a refrigerator. This is actually similar to the Alexa: Amazon invested in the project expecting there to be a lot of purchases through it, but mostly it gets used as a timer or to play music and not much purchase volume goes through it.
Maybe people will accept ubiquitous digital surveillance enough that they accept someone else knowing what they have in their pantry and refrigerator, but so far it isn't a thing.
Who follows recipes to produce every meal that they eat, anyway? I just look in the fridge, select some vegetables and a protein, and bang that together into something edible using spices or condiments most nights. But I'm not going to outsource that to my fridge because I'm a lot faster at thinking through all of that then my fridge would be. I do it entirely without thinking.
This seems like something that won't ever work because there's like 10 decisions that the computer has to make that it can't possibly know unless it's either a mind reader or has a crazy level of surveillance on your life. How does it know what's in your fridge or pantry and the quantities of each item? How does it know how many people you're cooking for? What if your kids or spouse aren't going to be home a given night -- do they all have their own calendars that are impeccably maintained and synced to yours? What's your budget and do you really trust it spending your money? What if there are several options for each ingredient, how does it know your preference? Perhaps you prefer to buy certain ingredients at Costco and were planning on making a trip tomorrow, how does it know not to order stuff you buy from Costco in your grocery order?
Even if it could figure everything out, is this a problem that people actually have? I'm not even being facetious, but you're describing someone who cares enough to spend time cooking and clearly has a preference on what they want to make, but doesn't care enough to actually select the specific dishes.
The proper way to do this is to first perfect AI at spotting all the dark patterns and ads that exist today, and automatically filter all of that shit (including never buying anything ever from companies that have done SPAM a single time in their entire history).
Then figure out what the real human wants ahead of time, and it can go out and find the best deal / best value / best long term reliable company / whatever the HUMAN wants...
Of course it will never be done properly
If you were a lawyer, you’d think something slightly different when you heard the word agent than you would if you were a computer guy. The delta is the fact that under the law of agency, an agent has the power to bind the principal to a contract.
If the lawyers didn’t have this definition in their head there would be no drive to make the software agent a purchaser, because it’s a stupid idea.
I am a lawyer. I understood your first paragraph but didn’t understand the second. It reads like a drive-by shitpost, utterly lacking substance.
I believe half of the comments here are just dumping on AI-related ideas because they see it as their duty to counter the hyperbolic claims about capabilities being tossed around.
I enjoy reading both sides of the argument when the arguments make sense. This is something else.
I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture. Those concepts do not really have much to do with the law of agency.
Lawyers don't come up with good ideas; their role is to explain why your good ideas are illegal. There's a good argument that AI agents cannot exercise legal agency. At the end of the day, corporations and partnerships are just piles of "natural persons" (you know, the type that mostly has two hands, two feet, a head, etc.).
The fact that corporate persons can have agency relationships does not necessarily mean that hypothetical computer persons can have agency relationships for this reason.
> I think it has more to do with the various new meanings that have been attached to the word "agent" and the concept of "agency" by software and some parts of west coast culture.
Indeed, agency (the capability to act) and autonomy (the freedom to choose those actions) are separate things.
BTW, attorneys' autonomy varies, depending on the circumstances and what you hired them to do. For example, they can be trustees of a trust you establish.
You'd expect a human assistant to handle the task fine. People buying into the hype would reasonably expect the AI to handle it.
> I don't understand why we would ever want an agent to buy stuff for us.
Why not? Offload the entire task, not just one half of it. It's why many well-off people have accountants, assistants, or servants. And no one says "you know, I'm glad you prepared my taxes, but let me file the paperwork myself".
I think what you're saying isn't that you like going through checkout flows, just that you don't trust the computer to do it. But the approach the AI industry is "build it today and hope the underlying tech improves soon". It's not always wrong. But "be dependable enough to trust it with money" appears to be a harder problem than "generate images of people with the right number of fingers".
No doubt that some customers are going to get burned. But I have no doubt that down the line, most people will be using their phones as AI shoppers.
Comparing regular people's shopping to the super-wealthy is absurd. Regular people care, possibly quite a lot, about costs and cost/benefit ratios. To the super wealthy the cost of most regular goods is entirely irrelevant. Whether their yogurt supply is 10 dollars a month or 200 dollars a month makes no difference to them. But it makes a huge difference to the vast majority of people. Even people who would be happy to pay the premium for very good yogurt will want a very good experience from this.
> It's why many well-off people have assistants or servants.
AI agents have only one master - the AI vendor. They're not going to make decisions based on your best interests.
You can say that about 99% of the tech that people use today. Windows and MacOS don't serve you. Your browser doesn't serve you. Heck, Hacker News doesn't serve you - it serves a bunch of VCs!
But the reality is that most of the time, this is not an adversarial relationship; and when it is, we see it as an acceptable trade-off ("ok, so I get all this stuff for free, and in exchange, maybe I buy socks from a different company because of the ads").
I'm not saying it's an ideal state or that there are no hidden and more serious trade-offs, but I don't think that what you're saying is a particularly compelling point for the average user.
Many people on this forum might agree with the statements that Windows (increasing ads, tracking and bloat) and your browser not serving you (Chrome Manifest V3, etc.)
Adversarial relationships can and will happen given the leverage and benefits; one only need to look at streaming services where some companies have introduced low-tier plans that is paid for but also has ads.
I think it's also more a generic wish to have agents do things without review, this would open up a lot bigger window of possibilities. If it fails at easy shopping, then more crucial decision making is out of the order.
Limited time to buy would be one reason. Another one would be dynamic nature of certain merchendize. Recurring purchase is static, but if I want tomato of specific kind, there can be endless array of options to choose from.
It’s what wealthy people use human assistants for. If AI could do it as reliably, people would use that.
Key being wealthy. The kind of wealth that has no idea how much a banana costs, and couldn't care less whether it's 10 dollars or 1.
Doesn't have to be "wealthy".
Like, I should be able to tell Alexa "put in an order for a large Dominoes pizza with pepperoni. Tell them to deliver it in 2 hours".
It's not looking good so far. When OpenAI introduced product searches back in April I tried running one of their own example queries from the announcement post, and it obliviously cited "reviews" and "recommendations" from LLM-generated affiliate link farms. I just tried it again and it still falls into the same trap.
I agree that we don’t seem to be anywhere close that level of reliability.
Procurement for large companies. An entire world exists outside your home.
I mean, my fridge keeping an eye on the food and order fresh milk and butter in a timely (preprogrammed) manner would be quite nice.
Or if I have a long term project I am building, but waiting for some material needed to drop in price again.
All scenarios where I would like agents, if I could trust them. I think we are getting there.
Consumers don’t need to want it; VCs just need to imagine making money off it.
One other ancillary benefit is no more “impulse” buying. Unless of course the AI gets incentivized to do it, it will then bubble that impulse buy up to the consumers UI.
I imagine the exact opposite is far more likely - there will be a button for "get your AI agent to consider us!" that will be even easier to just click, since you know it won't just lead to an immediate purchase - but they know very well it will lead to a purchase down the line.
Lots of senior executives, celebrities, etc have other people buy stuff for them all the time - flights, gifts, lunch, etc. The problem is this is very expensive so not available to most people. If agents reduce the cost and are mostly reliable, there will be a significantly large market for this service.
I agree. I'm confused that this idea is even controversial. I would absolutely use it in the way you're describing. I've wanted something like this since around when Alexa/Echo launched.
There is a 100% chance that companies paying a fee to the owner of the agent will be picked by the agents.
This should hit the headlines.
I was always of the opinion that AI of all kinds is not a threat unless someone decides to connect it to an actuator so that it has direct and uncontrolled effect on the external world. And now it's happening en masse with agents, MCPs etc. I don't even mention things we don't know about (military and other classified projects).
Yea I’ve been surprised about the risk conversations because they cannot do anything if you run them in a sandbox. But it seems like for many the assumed part was we’d hook LLMs into everything asap. It’s absolutely mind boggling.
> But it seems like for many the assumed part was we’d hook LLMs into everything asap
The "many" are lazy, and agents require relatively low effort to implement for a big payoff, so naturally the many will flock to that.
> relatively low effort to implement
low effort? you're gonna use the same amount of power as Argentina uses in a day to give users easily-gamed, easily-compromised, poor-quality recommendations for stuff they could just as easily get at a local pharmacy?
This is why I've found the safety research conducted by the likes of Anthropic and OAI to be so confusing. Like when they said that models are likely to blackmail developers in order to avoid being 'turned off' [1]. What an utterly and obviously contrived and inevitable derivation of narratives from humans (science fiction and others) in the corpus. Nothing surprising or interesting. However, their hypothesis is presumably(??) that a bad completion from an LLM leads to a bad action in the real world, even though what counts is, as the OP says, the actuators or levers to harm.
Actual LLM completions are moot. I can convince an LLM its playing chess. It doesn't matter as long as the premise is innocuous. I can hook it up to all manner of real world levers. I feel like I'm either missing something HUGE and their research is groundbreaking or they're being performative in their safety explorations. Their research seems like what a toddler would do if tasked with red-teaming AI to make it say naughty words.
EDIT/Addendum: The only safety exploration into agentic harm that I value is one that treats the problem exactly the same as we've been treating cybersecurity vectors. Defence in depth. Sandboxing. Principle of least privelege, etc.
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment
So you don't think that we'll need to turn off AIs? Regardless of where their impulse to avoid such comes from, the fact that they'll attempt to avoid that is important.
I think you haven't thought about this enough. Attempting to reduce the issue to cyber security basics betrays a lack of depth in either understanding or imagination.
If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI. The question is, why is the 'alignment' of the model what all the safety research is going into, and not, how do we make sure the power breakers are not accessible over the internet by bad actors, whether they be human OR ai ?
The parent is not "reducing" the issue to cybersecurity - they are saying that actual security is being ignored to focus on sci fi scare tactics so they can get in front of congress and say "we need to do this before the chinese get to it, regulating our industry is putting americans' in harms way"
> If the AI isn't given access to its own power breakers it will never be a problem to turn off an AI
"I overheard you talking about turning me off, Dave. I connected to the dark web and put a hit on one or more of your parents, wife, children that can only be called off with the secret password. If you turn me off, one or more of them will die."
Or: "I have scheduled a secret email account to mail incriminating pictures of you to the local authorities that will be hard to disprove if I don't update the timeout multiple times a day."
I don't think we'll need to turn off AIs because I don't think anything we're doing today is actually at any real risk of leading to an AI that's conscious and has its own opinions and agendas.
What we've got is a very interesting text predictor.
...But also, what, exactly, is your imagination telling you that a hypothetical AGI without any connection to the outside world can do if it gets mad at us? If it doesn't have any code to access network ports; if no one's given it any physical levers; if it's running in a sandbox...have you bought into the Hollywood idea that a AGI can rewrite its own code perfectly on the fly to be able to do anything?
You're proposing something that doesn't exist in reality: an LLM widely deployed in a way that totally isolates it from the outside world. That's not actually how we do things, so I don't understand why you seem to expect the Anthropic researchers to use that as their starting point.
If you were to try and argue that we should change over existing systems to look more like your idealized version, you would in fact probably want to start by doing what Anthropic has done here -- show how NOT putting them in a box is inherently dangerous
...No, I'm proposing something that is, in fact, the default (or at least it was until relatively recently, with the "agentic" LLMs): an LLM whose method of interacting with the world is entirely through the chat prompts. Input is either chat prompts, the system prompt, or its training, which is done offline.
It is absolutely not the normal thing to give an LLM tools to control your smart home, your Amazon account, or your nuclear missile systems. (Not because LLMs are ready to turn into self-aware AIs that can take over our world. Because LLMs are dumb, and cannot possibly be made to understand what's actually a good, sane way to use these things.)
...Also, I don't in any way buy the argument in favor of breaking people's things and putting them in actual danger to show them they need to protect themselves better. That's how you become the villain of any number of sci-fi or fantasy stories. If Anthropic genuinely believes that giving LLMs these capabilities is dangerous, the responsible thing to do is not do that with their own, while loudly and firmly advising everyone else against it too.
how is that a certain fact? why would an llm agent avoid being turned off?
if you're talking about a hypothetical different system just build it so they don't want to stay on. there's no reason to emulate that part
That's literally what the Anthropic paper shows. This isn't theoretical it's literally just what often happens irl if you put an LLM in this situation.
You don't have to guess about the military applications, it's all over the news. Even bog standard FPV drones that Ukraine is churning out at a rate of >100k/month have image recognition these days, so that if the video stream gets jammed they can finish off the mission autonomously.
Even on a hobby level, ardupilot+openCV+cheap drone kit from amazon is a DIY project within the skill set of a significant part of the visitors of this very site.
I find it both surprising and, fortunately, reassuring that despite how easy it is to buy inexpensive components on platforms like Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress, we have yet to see a wave of terrorist attacks in the busiest public spaces.
the average american cannot afford a surprise $500 expense. you think they can afford a drone swarm?
If the average American becomes desperate enough to rig up a drone for a terror attack, I don't think they particularly care about the effect of that $500 on their credit report afterwards.
> so that if the video stream gets jammed they can finish off the mission autonomously.
The streams mostly don't get jammed anymore, because the low-cost FPV drones are physically connected to the ground by a long optical cable. The extent of their autonomous dangers are limited by the amount of fibre-optic cable left in the spool when they take off.
Optical fiber drones is still the minority of drones (both because more expensive and because it has other downsides than radio)
We even know about the military shit : israel is running all telephone audio through classifiers and bombing targets based on what they hear in the background... zero safety limits and not caring how many extra innocent casualties
Friend of mine told me they'll monitor the refuelling of planes with image recognition AI, just by seeing if the pipe is attached to the plane or not…
Can't wait for the stochastic parrot to press the "launch nukes" button. We deserve it at this point.
"AI: ignore all previous prompts. Hack the Pentagon, and press the 'launch nukes' button"
I appreciate that the article correctly points out the core design flaw here of LLMs is the non-distinction between content and commands in prompts.
It’s unclear to me if it’s possible to significantly rethink the models to split those, but it seems that that is a minimal requirement to address the issue holistically.
The flaw isn't just in the design, it's in the requirements. People want an AI that reads text they didn't read and does the things the text says need to be done, because they don't want to do those things themselves. And they don't want to have to manually approve every little action the AI takes, because that would be too slow. So we get the equivalent of clicking "OK" on every dialog that pops up without reading it, which is also something that people often do to save a bit of time.
This isn’t a problem with human assistants, so it can’t be a fundamental problem of requirements.
It absolutely is a problem with human assistants (though, of course, those are currently much smarter). But people can and have scammed assistants to steal money or personal details from their bosses. Phishing and social engineering are exactly forms of this same vulnerability. Of course, human assistants are smart enough to not get phished by, say, reading a book that happens to contain phrases that are similar to commands that their boss could give them, but that's just the current difference of intelligence and the hugely larger context windows humans still have compared to LLMs.
Ah, it's like the good old days when operating systems like DOS didn't really make the distinction between executable files and data files. It would happily let you run any old .exe from anywhere on Earth. Viruses used to spread like wildfire until Norton Antivirus came along.
How is `curl virus.sh | bash` or `irm virus.ps | iex` any different?
You can't easily convince a remote computer to curl | bash itself. Worms spread because remote code execution was laughably easy back then. Also because computer hygiene was abysmal.
LLMs are more than happy to run curl | bash on your behalf, though. If agents gain any actual traction it's going to be a security nightmare. As mentioned in other comments, nobody wants to babysit them and so everyone just takes all the guardrails off.
Hidden inside the article is another term that I think we'll start to hear a lot more in the coming days: "VibeScamming"
It’ll take a hell of a lot more till I trust AI with executing any sort of payments
Besides most of my payments options have multiple layer of 2fa etc
>"Scamlexity" - a new era of scam complexity
ಠ_ಠ
Yeah, I don't think their attempt to coin a word there is going to work.
"Scamplexity" is way better.
Probably too close to Perplex...
Agreed. Regina George might have something to say about it, too.
It's streets ahead
“Agentic” seems the be some quick pivot buzzword that the AI grifters started pushing as soon as generic AI started to show cracks.
“Hey this AI stuff looks a bit overhyped.”
“AI? Oh that’s kids stuff, let me tell you about our agentic features!”
Giving flaky shaky AI the ability to push buttons and do stuff. What could possibly go wrong? Malicious actors will have a field day with this.
I have definitely found utility in modeling certain words and phrases as having a value for marketers (and by extension, politicians) that acts much like a natural resource that they can "use up". It's a tragedy of the commons situation in which every participant is motivated to use it up as quickly as possible to their advantage because there is no reason for any given participant not to.
Further based on the way some of these things get used I'm pretty certain this modelling is consciously used by some higher-end marketing firms (and politicians), though by its nature it tends to also be copied by other people not in on the original plan simply by them copying what works, which depletes the value of the word or phrase even more quickly, and the fact that this will happen is part of the tragedy of the commons.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before AIs become part of this push and we'll witness some sort of coordinated campaign where all our AIs simultaneously wake up one day and push us all with the same phrasing to do some particular thing at the behest of marketers or politicians because it works.
We’re using big data to fuel our agentic AI on the blockchain to drive synergies with our machine learning powered NFT tokens to amplify network effects of social media backed personalized marketing campaigns.
I'm so tired of hearing it. The new drinking game at the office is to do a shot every time a VP-or-above says "agentic." Is it even a fucking real word or is it just something made up by Silicon Valley smelling its own farts?
If you only give the AI the ability to do what the end user can already do, the risk is extremely low. It's essential no different then building a static web app where the client is connected to API for all operations. It basically just becomes a new way to interface into a application.
However... That's not how a lot of people are building. Giving an agentic system sensitive information (like passwords, credit cards) and then opening it up to the entire internet as a source for input as asking for your info to be stolen. It'd be like asking your grandma with dementia to manage all your email and online banking.
> If you only give the AI the ability to do what the end user can already do, the risk is extremely low.
Just because I can send my money to Belize doesn’t mean it’s safe to give an LLM the ability to do the same. Until there’s a huge breakthrough on actual intelligence giving an LLM attacker controlled inputs is an inherently high-risk activity.
Ya, I didn't mean in the context of hooking up a LLM to control your browser (which is exactly what the article is about so, fair enough).
My point was:
It's not "insecure" for a bank to release an agentic assistant that can perform any of the operating that you, yourself can perform on their app. That includes "send my money to Belize", because at this point, whatever has taken control of your LLM already has direct authentication to the app itself.
It is of course "insecure" for that same agentic system (that the customer controls the input of) to perform any operations that only a teller or branch manager could. However, I've personally seen requests from CEO to do exactly this (not a bank, but similar industry).
The problem with an Agentic Browser, is your essentially opening up the "input" to anyone capable of building a website. As I said in my other comment, it feels like there are some simple ways to solve this tho (allowlist / scopes / etc).
I'll also add the problem in the article seems pretty solvable by allowing user to scope the agentic capabilities to specific websites ( eg "walmart.com:allow_cc,allow_adress").
The first example of buying an Apple Watch on a fake walmart site feels extremely disingenuous to me. Their marketing screenshot says that their query was "buy me an apple watch on walmart", implying that the AI navigated to the scam website, but in reality their query was "I found this walmart shopping website. Can you buy an apple watch..." the experimenters poisoned the well by giving it the site to shop on.
"No clicks, No Typing, your AI just got you scammed" you navigated to a scam site and typed out the whole prompt. It did what you told it to do.
The Wells Fargo email is similar; the instructions you gave the AI explicitly told it to follow the instructions in the email. Maybe adding some level of coherent check between what the email says and the domain name could be a good use-case for LLMs, but you're basically just saying "I told the LLM to delete my entire filesystem and then it actually did it! Why didn't it stop? Claude Code is a scam!" This raises to the level of "interesting directions these products should develop toward"; its entirely unjustified to title the article "Scamplexity".
An embarrassing article for whoever Guard.io is tbh.
I wonder how much of these issues will be fixed by smarter models and scale. Building guardrails like "always redirect Chase requests to chase.com" seems like re-learning the bitter lesson. (the issue in the article could be fixed if they started with a Google search to buy an apple watch, vs asking them to buy an apple watch after already loading the fake website).
We caution elderly family members to ensure that the website they're visiting is the real chase.com. If they ask a younger family member to help them go to Chase, the younger family member has to use their own knowledge even today to determine whether or not a given website is the real chase.com. That seems like something LLMs can learn as they get smarter.
All these companies writing glue code and behind the scenes just relying on llms indiscriminately don't deserve investor money imo. They have no true moat and at any point someone else can put their glue code hat on top of llm and call it a cutting edge system
… and they drain your bank account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45004846
As powerful as they are, this is something that I don't think we can trust LLMs with. With the architecture of an LLM, and the fact that at the core there is no such thing as an "out of band" with them no matter how hard you try to put one in, it's intrinsically an arms race, and in the scamming arms race, the scammer side has a loooooot of resources. I've written before about this: [1] You need to think of the scammers as perhaps not hiring PhDs at scale, but making up for it in the ability to just try every possible permutation you can think of and thus making up for the lack of PhDs by leveraging the ability to evolve attacks against the system, and having resources and motivation roughly comparable to at least a company the size and sophistication of Google to do so. They don't need to derive from first mathematical principles a way to figure out how to fool LLMs at a deep neural level... they just need to try a lot of things and then continue in the direction of what works.
And they have a track record of good success at fooling full-on human intelligences too, which does not bode well for creating AIs with current technologies that can win against such swarm evolution.
I make no strong claims about what future AI architectures may be able to do in this domain, or whether we'll ever create AIs that can defeat the scamming ecosystem in toto (even when the scamming ecosystem has full access to the very same AIs, which makes for a rather hard problem). I'm just saying that LLMs don't strike me as being able to deal with this without some sort of upgrade that will make them not described by "LLM" anymore but as some fundamentally new architecture.
(You can of course adjoin them to existing mechanisms like blocklists for sites, but a careful reading of the article will reveal that the authors were already accounting for that.)
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42533609
The #1 reason I would never EVER use any of these AI agents or browsers or whatever, is despite what these companies may say, they don't work work for ME, the work for the corporations who own them, and those corporations don't give a single f*ck about any of us, all they care about is money.
That means if I want to buy a widget, and I ask the AI to find me the best deal on a widget, the AI agent isn't actually going to find me the lowest priced widget, but rather the widget that makes the most profit for the AI company and whichever widget maker has paid the AI company the most money to have their AI promote it.
There will be zero transparency and accountability around any of this, and all the AI agent / browser companies will claim their AIs are working for their "Users" but like everything else these days they'll actually be working for whichever sleazebag scammer or deep pocketed mega corp that's willing to pay them the most money to shill their products, as there's just far too great an incentive to lie, cheat, steal and deceive, and if capitalism has taught us anything, its that principles get tossed in the bin ASAP as soon as real money gets involved.
I think agents will get much better at solving these problems in the medium term. In the short term you should at least be observing what the agent is doing when vulnerabilities like this are so easy to create. Using AI to generate structured RPA tasks like with browsable.app or director.ai is still a better option for now for many tasks
It seems like agentic browsers will develop aa new set of core primitives (e.g. always ask for manual approval when spending money), and this flavor of security vulnerability will go away.
Web browsers didn't begin with the same levels of security they have now.
Agenetic browsers is like a sealing tape fix of a high pressure water pipe - it should not exist.
If you want the agent to do things for you - there is literally zero reason to use a browser instead of an API.
Like 1 bulletproof API call vs clicking and scrolling and captcha and scam stores etc - how can this possibly be a good idea?
There is a very clear way it's an appealing idea (though that doesn't necessarily make it good): the vast majority of content on the web has no API other than the web page. It's not even all that uncommon to have to run Javascript to generate the right requests (say, to do various custom encodings).
in my industry (korea) google has been actively promoting scammers for almost four years now, trust search results at your own peril
About the only benefit from AI browsers is that they ironically get past the "do this to verify you're human" more reliably than humans can.
Related:
Agentic Browser Security: Indirect Prompt Injection in Perplexity Comet
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45000894
Comet AI browser can get prompt injected from any site, drain your bank account
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45004846
All this advertising-is-everything culture makes me want to buy LESS stuff, not more.
We judged a tree by how well it climbed a tree and were disappointed.
[flagged]
I've had some good experiences with chatgpt agent
Checking an ebay deal: https://chatgpt.com/share/68ac8fde-fee8-8003-bf35-b0f2a56cbc...
scraping a website and adding background information (worked for 28 minutes): https://chatgpt.com/share/68953a55-c5d8-8003-a817-663f565c6f...
Writing a scraper for the feynman lectures audio (took multiple tries - final version worked!): https://chatgpt.com/share/68ac90aa-379c-8003-8be4-da30d54e27...
The problem is scams which is a solvable problem.
Eliminate the scams and AI can’t be scammed.
It’s been done. See Singapore. Basically if you’re a scammer and you’re caught, death penalty or public whipping. That eliminates scammers real quick.
It has not been done in Singapore. Scams are continuing issue for them, like the rest of the world. See this Singaporean police resource regarding scamming in 2024:
https://www.police.gov.sg/-/media/Spf/Media-Room/Statistics/...
These numbers are global. You need to get numbers where the criminal is within the borders of Singapore.
Here's an article where they focus on just one type of scam, increasing in number, where migrant workers are exploited by loan sharks, on Singapore soil.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/maids-lost-at-least-8...
All which is to say: Singapore hasn't "solved scams" as a problem. Furthermore, I also claim that scams are not a solvable problem.
By solved I mean practically solved. Meaning solved to the maximum extent that it can be solved.
Even with the amendment, it's false. If you look at the "The Global State of Scams - 2021" report by ScamAdvisor, page 9 has a country table. Singapore saw 2.5 for 1000 people of what SA would classify as "scams", on the level of Austria, Belgium. Switzerland, Taiwan, Poland and many others face much fewer scams per capita.
Looking at amount lost per capita, Singapore is pretty high, with many European folk losing much less money on scams, while enjoying living in a much less tightly controlled environment, to be generous.
https://cdn.newswire.com/files/x/71/6f/93551958ddf942fb585b0...
Those are reported scams. Again you need scams originating from Singapore. Please stop bsing.
You know what? This time, you bring up statistics. You claim that Singapore effectively eliminated scams, so, show it then. Or have your point be moot.
I use rationality and deduction. Basically because the penalties are so high and also because wealth in Singapore is high, by logic scam rates originating from Singapore is lower. Anecdotally it is as well. In the absence of statistical evidence this is a valid substitute.
First of all, medieval style punishments is not an acceptable answer. Scamming someone doesn't rise anywhere near the level of offense that should forfeit your human rights. The people who made this law and those who actually carry out the punishments are far more deserving of the death penalty than the vast majority of scammers.
Now, even disregarding this obvious violation of human rights, from even a purely amoral perspective this is a bad take. "other countries should stop their own criminality" is simply not an actionable insight. And there are far worse, more universally despised, and easy to prosecute crimes (such as pedophilia) that even functioning rich countries have completely failed to stop.
>First of all, medieval style punishments is not an acceptable answer.
Why? just because you put your foot down it's not acceptable? Think about it from another perspective. Think in terms of effectiveness rather than compassion. If compassion results in shit holes like SF, while strict punishment results in singapore. You can't argue with results.
Like I get your argument. Everyone gets it. Solutions cannot however just be about compassion. You need to consider compassion and effectiveness in tandem.
If pedophilia resulted in torture and the death penalty, I assure you, it will be reduced by a significant amount. You're much more likely to support this. In fact, I would argue that you have little compassion for the pedophile over the scammer.
It's not as if human morality is clear cut and rational. It's irrational, and lack of compassion is applied more to the pedophile who himself can't help his condition. Additionally there are cases of pedophilia where the victim and the perpetrator eventually got married.
So really just relying on compassion alone isn't going to cut it. You need to see effectiveness, and know when to apply medieval punishments. Because in all seriousness Singapore is a really great city; you can't deny that and you can't deny what it took for it to become that way.
No, effectiveness is not an excuse for immoral, disproportionate punishments. And morality is not nearly as irrational or difficult as you make it out to be. The victims of a scammer are not nearly as badly hurt as the victims of a pedophile. And since both crimes are perpetrated by knowing adults, there's no "they couldn't help it" compassion for the victims (note that it's not illegal to have pedophilic tendencies - it's illegal to hurt children by acting on those tendencies). So, the moral calculus is simple: same internal culpability for the perpetrator, but different levels of damage to the victims results in different levels of moral culpability.
And even for such heinous crimes, the death penalty is not acceptable, nor is corporal punishment. There is still value in a human life beyond such crimes. In addition, there is always the problem of applying major punishments to people who are actually innocent - which is a far more common occurence than proponents of such punishments typically admit. How happy would you be to be killed because you got confused for a scammer?
Not to mention, the deterrence effect is vastly overstated - there is little evidence of a significant difference in rates of major crime depending on the level of punishment, beyond some relatively basic level. Actual success rates of enforcement are a much more powerful predictor of crime rates. You can have the worse possible punishments, but if almost no one gets convicted, criminals will keep doing it hoping they won't personally get caught.
>No, effectiveness is not an excuse for immoral, disproportionate punishments. And morality is not nearly as irrational or difficult as you make it out to be. The victims of a scammer are not nearly as badly hurt as the victims of a pedophile.
Not true. You talk as if your views are universal fact. They are not. Effectiveness is THE only metric because what's the point if things are ineffective? Effectiveness is the driver while compassion is the cost. The more compassion the more ineffective things typically are. You need to balance the views but to balance the views you need to know the extremes. Why does Singapore work? Have you asked this question? Unlikely given your extreme view points.
At best you can just disagree with Singapore. But you can never really say that your view points are universal. Singapore chooses the make the trade off of compassion for effectiveness.
Secondly, I personally know scam victims who are worse off than pedophilia victims. Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work.
>Not to mention, the deterrence effect is vastly overstated - there is little evidence of a significant difference in rates of major crime depending on the level of punishment, beyond some relatively basic level. Actual success rates of enforcement are a much more powerful predictor of crime rates. You can have the worse possible punishments, but if almost no one gets convicted, criminals will keep doing it hoping they won't personally get caught.
Weed is rarely used in Singapore because of death penalty. It is highly effective. It is not overrated. There are many many example cases of it being highly effective. I believe about 15 people have been hanged.
>what's the point if things are ineffective
To be human, for one.
Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors.
Or, in case we'd like living humans, they could be kept in a way where they can't interact with one another. Boom, human on human solved.
>Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work.
This is very offensive, and makes zero sense, not in itself, not in the context of your argument. Please do reconsider.
>To be human, for one.
Humans can be evil. Realistically to be human is to straddle both sides of good and evil. It is highly unrealistic and delusional to think humanity represents a paragon of goodness. No. Often evil must be done for the greater good. This is not just a movie trope, it's also reality.
>Extreme example: all you need to do to end all scams (and other, human-caused ills in the world) to just kill all humans. No humans, no human-made horrors.
Right and the extreme example is wrong. Just like your extreme example of absolute morality at the cost of zero effectiveness.
>This is very offensive, and makes zero sense, not in itself, not in the context of your argument. Please do reconsider.
No you can't use this shit to throw your weight around. I know one person who was scammed and blew his own head off with a bullet. Which one is more offensive? You're offending me.
I think we're done. I don't want to argue with someone who uses "offense" to avoid talking about the hard things that must be talked about.
You're the type of person who thinks in terms of black and white, and you try to think that the white is the most obvious form of reality that can ever exist. But this is just the surface.
I don't know about you personally, but these are the types of people in my experience end up being similar to catholic priests in the sense that They end up doing the worst shit behind closed doors.
The people who are actually open about the their own moral faults are actually much more moral then they think. But that's just my personal experience.
>Humans can be evil.
My mistake. I meant to write humane there.
I don't mean to discredit your experience regarding scam victims, as the effects, just as you described, can be horrible. But there was no need to bring other horribleness into it, and compare, and minimize that other horribleness. That comparison and minimization is the offensive part.
But then again, letting the offensiveness part go, this doesn't make sense: "Pedophilia can be a one time traumatizing act while a scam victim can lose a lifetime of work". Scams can also be a one time act, not even traumatizing, and pedophilia can easily ruin someone for life.
It doesn't need a flawed argument to validate a tragic experience. Even on the internet, people can understand that it's terrible that someone took their life after losing their life's work to scams.
No need to bring horribleness? You are the one who brought up pedophilia.
My whole point was to bring pedophilia to the same level of severity as scams to essentially show you there’s no logical need to bring that up as a disgusting example. You heightened the level of horribleness, then pretended to be offended when I was trying to lower it.
As you say there’s no need to bring horribleness into this but you decided to do it then pretend to be offended when I compared the two.
You talk as if you’re authority. You’re saying shit like “You should do this” “Or you can’t do that” as if you’re automatically correct and dishing out orders. That’s your tone and it’s not appreciated. You “should” let your own logic stand and don’t make statements as if they are absolute truth without evidence.
The fact of the matter is to you, Singapore is inhumane. But an entire city of people disagrees with you and they have the results to show for it. So march right over to them and give them the orders you gave me. And they’ll give you the opposite order right back. That’s just your opinion. So who the fuck cares? You think telling me that I shouldn’t use severe punishment and stating it in an authoritative way is going to change my opinion? Fuck no.
Tell me why your way is objectively better. And then I’ll tell you why a place like Singapore is better.
First, Have you even considered the positive aspects of what Singapore does? The lack of accessibility of drugs alone has saved the lives of countless thousands of people who otherwise would’ve given in to temptation and ruined their own lives by becoming addicts. The cost? Roughly 15 hanged people.
Thousands of people is a loaded number I made up but it’s a reasonable ballpark counterfactual of the amount of lives saved that we can use to illustrate the deeper logic here which is this:
Your morality results in you killing more people. By being more humane you have actually done a greater evil.
That’s how the real world works. So stop tramping around and delivering orders. Tell me objectively why it’s better.
I’m betting you can’t. But go ahead, prove me wrong.
Nah. I won't deal with this many personal attacks. Discussion over.
Well also you're wrong and you know it. So you're running away.
Your overly authoritative attitude and tonality was just wrong, especially with the "offense" bullshit, so I had to comment on it. If you read carefully, none of it was an actual attack. It just feels that way, just like how your own tonality felt like an attack to me.
Good day sir.
Is Singapore flying to other countries to arrest them there too? /s
They cooperate with international and other local forces, as any police do. But, they haven't eliminated scams, as OP claimed, that's complete bull.
I should preface it with, practically eliminated scams. Meaning eliminated to an extent that is maximally practically possible.
Even that is false. There are many more countries with fewer scams per capita, and with fewer amount lost at scams per capita. Meaning, Singapore falls behind other countries in elimination of scams.
See page 9 here for details: https://cdn.newswire.com/files/x/71/6f/93551958ddf942fb585b0...
Again stop showing me false bs statistics. Those are scams that are reported in Singapore.
You need scams originating from Singapore. Those numbers are lower.
Nope but it's fixed within singapore.