On the next run, they instructed it not to take out the human operator in pursuit of its goal, so instead it targeted the radio towers the human used to instruct it.
On the next run, they instructed it not to take out the human operator in pursuit of its goal, so instead it targeted the radio towers the human used to instruct it.
I think the problem with automation is seeking general automation. The word can have two opposed meanings: constrained behavior, as in "if X happens, the system will automatically do Y" and flexible behavior, as in "whatever you say to the chatbot, it will concoct a response that engenders a natural flow of conversation".
If you want a system to be autonomous, you need constrained behavior. It takes a lot of time to debug and work out all edge cases. Flexible behavior is bound to run into trouble at some point.
I think that is the fundamental issue with the LLM-chatbot-agents stack approach to AI. It looks autonomous at the surface, but the flexibility is bought at the cost of reliability. When you strain a system based on that stack it breaks. But the illusion of flexible behavior looking autonomous before it breaks is too strong.