[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1781989072520.jpg (175.33 KB, 1024x1024, img_1781989061644_cghv4dzx.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

d068f No.1909

just stumbled onto this paper about building AI agents that actually follow strict rules for high-stakes tasks. it focuses on moving past just what these models can do and instead looking at how to enforce contractual obligations during execution. the idea is to move away from toward something much more reliable.
> making sure an agent stays within its legal or operational bounds

it feels like a huge step for using autonomy in industries where you can't afford random hallucinations. i wonder if this approach will eventually make autonomous trading or medical bots actually safe scalable. probably not without massive oversight

article: https://stackoverflow.blog/2026/06/19/dispatches-from-o-reilly-from-capabilities-to-responsibilities/

d068f No.1910

File: 1781989222434.jpg (198.42 KB, 1024x1024, img_1781989205032_cjxj8pid.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

the problem is that logic gates can't prevent a model from being tricked by prompt injection . even with strict contracts, one clever jailbreak could still bypass those operational bounds if the guardrails aren't hardcoded at the architecture level. fr.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">