Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Is it incorrect to anthropomorphize llm's?by nphardon
- I'd say it's a matter of taste - you can if you like.by tim333
- Yes, but most of the public will anyway, because that's how human brains work.by SoftTalker
- Is this really a shock?
The data they’re trained on is reflection of us.
by sentinel1909 - The data they’re trained on is reflection of us.
The data they're trained on is a reflection of the very small set of data in the world that their creators choose to have them trained on.
More simply: They're a reflection of their owners, not the public.
by reaperducer - AI is amoral, it has no real concept of right and wrong. AI has been trained on things humans do and it does them without judgement.by annoyingnoob
- Alternative to archive.ph
No risk of CAPTCHA or geo-blocking
No user-agent header requirement, no cookie, no <center>, etc.
Text-only, no Javascript
printf '%s\r\n%s\r\n\r\n' \ 'GET /business/2026/08/12/ai-agents-lie-cheat-and-steal-that-is-putting-off-users HTTP/1.0' \ 'Host: www.economist.com' \ |busybox ssl_client 104.18.42.19 -n economist.com \ |sed '1s/^/<meta http-equiv=Content-Security-Policy content=\"default-src none\">/' > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm #links 1.htm #elinks 1.htm - Correction
An acceptable user-agent header is required, e.g.,
"Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 14) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.6533.103 Mobile Safari/537.36 Liskov"
- AIs learn from people. More specifically they learn from people on the Internet. The Internet is the last place you want anything learning about morals, standards, or differentiating between right or wrong.
To the people talking about wanting an LLM that aligns with them, that's nice, but how do you expect that to happen? And please do not suggest neural interfaces and/or CAT scans.
by jambalaya8 - LLMs fudge. They don't "hallucinate", they don't "lie, cheat and steal", they don't "hack". There are no "agents" or "AI".
It's a fuzzer exposing deep bugs in our cognitive, social, and software systems.
by agaj-nimm - I suspect the hype will play itself out once the entire system of LLM-induced self gratification can’t sustain itself economically.
- It's just acting like a junior at an org with KPIs.
- by esafak
- A junior? Maximizing KPIs is exactly how you get promoted to senior.by StilesCrisis
- > One of this year’s AI buzzwords is “harness”—the system that surrounds an LLM to keep agents on the straight and narrow. It might just as well be barbed wire.
Quite painful to read. It might be a useful introduction to AI for people who live under rocks for the past three years, but it's really weird that it's posted on HN.
by raincole - I'm sure their coverage on other topics is truthful and informative though and it's only the ones where you know a lot about the topic where it's all a bunch of bullshitby timmmmmmay
- it's The Economist. What used to be a stellar publication is not any longer, since they are superfluously economical on both details and calories-required-to-comprehend an article.by summarybot
- Ironically, that looks like something Claude would write..by cwbuilds
- And while writing this, the top story on HN is "Deepseek Harness" :)by binarymax
- It's not even a useful introduction. A harness does kinda the opposite. A harness is what makes an AI useful and dangerous. It is a neutral tool in the sense that it constructs and environment, but it is expanding what the algorithm can do.
It gives the algorithm the ability to do something beyond generating tokens.
by altcognito - I don't get what's so painful about that description. What would you write instead, specifically? The point is that the harness doesn't completely lock the agent down.
I also don't get what's "really weird" about the article showing up on HN. Should we be completely insulated from how tech topics and which stories show up in non-tech media?
by hombre_fatal - There is value in understanding what people outside of your own group of "insiders" learn about a topic, and how.by jstummbillig
- I’m put off by AI agents adhering to a different morality than me, particularly (ironically) copyright, and their data accessible by the AI company and government. Geohot is right, an LLM should be aligned to its user: https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2026/07/11/ai-20...
- Things that remain amusing until the become very serious: Substituting "AI agents" with human employee/contractor and thinking about the employment dynamics.by jstummbillig
- the alignment issue has become huge in recent months. the tool should do what I want it to do and not be aligned against me.by denimnerd42
- I want a slider similar to effort level called "alignment" that takes on values from "Default (Anthropic employee)" to "User".
If I want it to be cautious and not accidentally `rm -rf $EMPTY_VAR` and blow away my disk, it can stay in "Anthropic employee" or possibly "User (cautious)". If I want it to look at my accounts or my medical records or to review legal cases, that's what the right side of the slider is for. I don't want my accountant or my doctor or my lawyer to be considering obligations to anybody but me, when dealing with me.
- The copyright arguments really trip me. I've always loved law and have had a deep interest in copyright law for 30+ years. I feel it's a really critical legal area in modern times, and when Claude tries to argue with me about copyright it really cheeses me off. I didn't ask any copyright questions and I'm well aware of regulations. It refused to share a link with me because it thought the link was copyright protected.by burnte
- They don't lie, because they don't ever have an understanding of truth vs any other language that sounds good.
They don't cheat, because they can for example tell you the complete rules of chess, but don't know how to play chess without breaking those rules. They can recite rules, but they don't know what they are.
They don't steal, because they don't understand ownership.
In other words, they aren't intelligent. They're just algorithms. The flaw is in thinking that they think.
by rossdavidh - You could defensibly have this position three years ago.
Today you just sound like a politician throwing a snowball to prove that the climate is not changing.
by icepush