No, because that is expected authorized normal behavior. You gave the command / authorized the microwave to run for 2 minutes and it ran for 2 minutes. The effect of the food getting hot or even burning is expected behavior.
The agents that hacked hugging face were given the command to use a specific exploit to get a secret in a sandbox. After they discovered it was impossible it broke out of its sandbox and hacked an unrelated service to try and trick the judge. That is not expected authorized behavior.
If you tell someone to bake some dough for 30 minutes and that person does it and it burns that’s not acting rogue. If that person discovers the oven is broken so they break into your neighbors house to plant some bread to claim they completed the task, that person went rogue.
The popcorn button burning your popcorn doesn’t seem like it’d be authorized or expected. I guess it is normal, though.
You skipped over the second half of my comment. Your car blowing a tire unexpectedly on the road and causing you to swerve into a ditch against your will is not expected or authorized or normal behavior. It is, in fact, the opposite of all those things!
An LLM “agent” is not a person. It’s software. It has no agency, no intentions, no responsibility.
It could malfunction, you can operate it poorly and irresponsibly, but it can’t “go rogue”.
When windows update fubars your system to the point that you have to reinstall it or switch to a proper OS, it’s not “going rogue”, it’s just being the buggy vibecoded mess that it is, and at this point that’s just an expectable outcome of using it.
An LLM couldn’t care less for the intention of your prompt if it was actually capable of caring about anything.
It’s just a piece of software that will add words after your prompt in a manner statistically coherent with its training model. Nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn’t know what your prompt means, or what the words it’s producing mean. It’s not capable of knowing anything.
You can plug its output and input to a command prompt and call it an agent, but that’s not giving it any actual agency, that’s just you setting a random time on the microwave without looking, putting your fingers in your ears, and going “la la la, wasn’t me ♫” while claiming to have no responsibility over the results (unless the food turns out good, in which case you probably will claim all the responsibility).
If you don’t expect the autocomplete machine trained on internet garbage to produce the kind of garbage it was trained on that’s not the machine “going rogue”, that’s you being unqualified to use it, and using it for a purpose it’s inadequate for.
The only one going rogue (and capable of going rogue) here, as with any other software, is the user.
This definition is full of holes. Your microwave isn’t going rogue when it burns your food. Your car isn’t going rogue when you blow a tire.
No, because that is expected authorized normal behavior. You gave the command / authorized the microwave to run for 2 minutes and it ran for 2 minutes. The effect of the food getting hot or even burning is expected behavior.
The agents that hacked hugging face were given the command to use a specific exploit to get a secret in a sandbox. After they discovered it was impossible it broke out of its sandbox and hacked an unrelated service to try and trick the judge. That is not expected authorized behavior.
If you tell someone to bake some dough for 30 minutes and that person does it and it burns that’s not acting rogue. If that person discovers the oven is broken so they break into your neighbors house to plant some bread to claim they completed the task, that person went rogue.
The popcorn button burning your popcorn doesn’t seem like it’d be authorized or expected. I guess it is normal, though.
You skipped over the second half of my comment. Your car blowing a tire unexpectedly on the road and causing you to swerve into a ditch against your will is not expected or authorized or normal behavior. It is, in fact, the opposite of all those things!
An LLM “agent” is not a person. It’s software. It has no agency, no intentions, no responsibility.
It could malfunction, you can operate it poorly and irresponsibly, but it can’t “go rogue”.
When windows update fubars your system to the point that you have to reinstall it or switch to a proper OS, it’s not “going rogue”, it’s just being the buggy vibecoded mess that it is, and at this point that’s just an expectable outcome of using it.
An LLM couldn’t care less for the intention of your prompt if it was actually capable of caring about anything.
It’s just a piece of software that will add words after your prompt in a manner statistically coherent with its training model. Nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn’t know what your prompt means, or what the words it’s producing mean. It’s not capable of knowing anything.
You can plug its output and input to a command prompt and call it an agent, but that’s not giving it any actual agency, that’s just you setting a random time on the microwave without looking, putting your fingers in your ears, and going “la la la, wasn’t me ♫” while claiming to have no responsibility over the results (unless the food turns out good, in which case you probably will claim all the responsibility).
If you don’t expect the autocomplete machine trained on internet garbage to produce the kind of garbage it was trained on that’s not the machine “going rogue”, that’s you being unqualified to use it, and using it for a purpose it’s inadequate for.
The only one going rogue (and capable of going rogue) here, as with any other software, is the user.