As part of testing
@Muse, I quizzed it to explain to me a few things I think about when using these agents and deciding how much connections and context to give - the struggle of the Trust-Utility Curve (the more you give, the more useful it can be).
nitter.siddz.com/melodykoh/status/20262…
TLDR - there continues to be limitations around how LLMs fundamentally work and the probabilistic nature of things, and there really isn't a way to get around on context leakage or prompt injection-like attacks. However, I found Muse/Meta's willingness to be transparent in its mechanics reassuring.
A few highlights on my Q&A with Muse - see more details on the screenshots of my questions and its responses. 🧵
Q1 - you say that you will ask for my permission for actions, but how do I know this can be enforced deterministically (vs instructions in files, which are just vibes for these models)?
Most reassuring part of the answer:
"When I invoke a send tool, the runtime intercepts the call and blocks execution until you've approved it. I can't trigger the approval myself, can't see it, can't override it — the approval card is invisible to me and your decision is final. So even a compromised or injected version of me, actively trying to send without asking, hits the same wall: there is no code path where the send executes without the runtime obtaining your decision first."
Translate to non-developer speak: there's a mechanical gate that forces the model to serve up approval to the user when the action is a list of predefined "must get user approval". No vibes-bsed (good!)