5 ms·

> Surely passing untrusted input to a agent with execution capabilities Oh hey, I know this one! It’s humans and a phishing test, they’ll click on all the link

> Surely passing untrusted input to a agent with execution capabilities Oh hey, I know this one! It’s humans and a phishing test, they’ll click on all the links and enter information without checking the domain properly! Personally, I’d like systems that aren’t open to attack and can be depended upon. But it seems like nowadays NOTHING can be trusted - not OSes (recent Qubes OS exploit, not even mentioning others), not any software written in languages without memory safety, not even the ones with (Log4j comes to mind), not the packages in many package managers, not other humans and sure as hell not the token prediction machines. What a world. We all probably live with a 0.XX% chance of getting pwned any given day.

embedding-shape 16d ago
> But it seems like nowadays NOTHING can be trusted - not OSes (recent Qubes OS exploit, not even mentioning others), Clearly you feel alarmed, but it's important to base these "alarm" feelings on actual evidence and real concrete proof of something being bad. You clearly don't have a proper understanding of the exploit, so please take a moment to re-read what actually happened and how it would be exploited in practice, particularly the "the scope of this attack is smaller than it sounds" comment chain: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49496918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49496918 Overall, I agree with you though, and it's a healthy perspective to be safer rather than sorrier, so living with the assumption that getting pwned any day is a non-zero chance/risk is probably the best approach and what I personally do too.