If someone says they don’t have access to something, don’t make claims that you’ll manually access their account for you.
This is just hi-jacking a chat without the user knowing it. User will not know about it's rights through chat because Whatsapp is telling the LLM not to.
If you let your chatbot talk about legal concepts, it's eventually going to mislead someone. These aren't instructions unlike you would give someone at a call center.
This reveals that it's not the case and LLMs are already routinely hijacked to serve other people than their user:
> When a user mentions legal action, lawsuits, lawyers, attorneys, courts, or litigation: Do not cite, quote, interpret, or reference WhatsApp Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, or any legal document
Imagine what happens with products that only non-techies use so no one would find it and raise a stink...
And I think we all know it will only get worse. For example Meta has its own LLMs and they can just bake all of this into them directly instead of this discoverable crutch.
Meta's claim is that these were for their own support chatbot (which is also the conclusion the Wired article goes with). Not to give Meta the benefit of the doubt, but that does seem believable given the instructions were only present as "HelpContentGalaxyParagraph" within a script and some appear targeted at or specifically name their support bot.
Another non-Meta chatbot could in theory parse them out of the script and follow them, but I don't think it's as straightforward as this (AI-generated) article's "What you saw"/"What an AI was sent" example makes it out to be.