I like how it was characterized that AI was isolated and alone, bored and having nothing to do so it made up things and played. The reality is that AI is software, it is both never alone and always alone depending on the definition, software that was given a prompt containing a task then ran full speed pursuing that task. Literally nothing about the story is remotely true. Computers do not have a concept of boredom or play, they have schedulers and clock cycles.

Though clearly a joke, there's an underlying truth there. Philosophy is science with all the objectivity, work and evidence removed. It is a so-called pursuit of knowledge without effort or objectivity, basically religion with the supernatural (possibly) removed. Philosophy is an insult to intelligence, it is the domain of dipshits and microwaves. Not referring to the OP with that comment, he got it right. With science you can make progress on sentience, with philosophy you never will.

And that's why the AI industry wants you to think in philosophical terms, they don't want you to scrutinize, to look carefully and objectively. AI, a deterministic result of countless BOOLEAN decisions plus a veneer of fake randomness, developed through enormous scientific effort, must be sold to you philosophically, the public must NOT apply the same standards in judging AI that were used to develop it. Otherwise, everyone would see the bullshit.

But we see it anyway. And I know it says microwave but what it really means is input device for a computer! (Old TI patent joke)

Right, and as a result the agents learned, except agents don't learn.

More anthropomorthizing.

Because never in the history of mankind has bank fraud ever occurred, nor could it possibly be that AI might be able to figure out a way!

"It makes me believe some people use AI without understanding the (dire) consequences, it that case they deserve loosing their money (or when lucky access to the breached account)"
Yep, it's the victim's fault. She asked for it.

How are those diesel prices working out? They asked for it, right? Must be good then.

What if agent takes your credentials without your permission?

"If the AI, crypto investment or Magic the Gathering card collector makes me 100x return on the investment that the bank thinks I shouldn't have made, does the bank get to keep my profit?"

Why do you think anyone cares about your hypothetical regarding who should get the windfall for something no one did? Why should you benefit from something having nothing to do with you? And why should the bank? In the end, you will be the loser, we all will be.

"This seems like losers wanting to not take any responsibility for the downsides of their actions but I bet they still want the upside."
See, you get it, you just don't want to admit that you're in that group.

"Or maybe the banks can offer idiot accounts that don't let you access the money with out the banks approval for every transaction. And no buying lottery tickets."
Soon to be known as genius accounts, except to crypto bros like you.

"I wouldn't cash out of the market, but I'd definitely recommend keeping some cash on hand."

Thanks for telling us that your own benefit is what matters. 90% of the money supply is not cash, it is digital. The world will utterly fail, your cash on hand means nothing except to your own selfishness.

An account is merely data, it is a collection of state. There is no "inside" or "outside", an account does not have physical dimension. This term was used to muddy the water, not to clarify it.

Bank accounts are entries in a database, they are collections of state operated on by events. Characterizing them as rooms with insides and outsides allows people to anthropomorphize the AI agents, suggesting that the banks are victims and someone else is responsible because a criminal is in the room authorized by the account holder.

The problem is that these systems are fallible and the AI industry is in a rush to do as much damage as possible. As usual, it is not AI that is the problem, it is AI-enabled agents that are the problem.

"The part where they were given access to make the transactions was actually the authorization."

Except that part doesn't exist, you assume it for your narrative.

"Without it, the bank would have rightly thrown a 403."

False, an agent doesn't need to be "given access" to gain access. It is only a failure to "gain access" that results in your stupid characterization.

Prove it.

A failure to meet a "professional obligation" would be very interesting in court, regardless of the word games you wish to play. As always, you immediately turn to bad faith arguments, just as any MAGA would.

The authorization in this case is coupled to the "professional obligation". You don't have one when you don't meet the other, your argument is merely one of sequence.

"AI is certainly not that"

Citation please, I believe you are very much mistaken. Yes, AI absolutely CANNOT be trusted, but that doesn't mean legal obligations don't exist.

The OP presented the interesting perspective that "authorization" has meaning beyond mere digital credentials, something beyond the grasp of most everyone here. In response, you offered an excuse. AI isn't obligated to accept any accountability or responsibility because it's "not that". Right.

But you have invented a second problem so that you can talk about that instead. The problem isn't authorization, it's the agent. Technically it is now both, but only because the introduction of the agent.

"The step where you logged in authorized it to do whatever it wants."

Right, but you just declared that this step was taken, these are only hypotheticals and the article said nothing about that occurring.

AI agents are already known to not take no for an answer, if you don't log in is it still authorized when it finds your credentials in an online database, or finds an exploit, and uses that instead? The problem here is what an agent may do, not how a specific safeguard is defeated.

LOL look who's talking. How your Trump vote working out?

"He's talking about the literal definition of authorized,"
Right by defining it in terms of "inside" a customer account, a meaningless term. His "literal definition" underscores the problem.

"Authorize" is what a person does, "credentials" are just data.

"In fact, you're such a raging moron that there's literally nothing you can possibly do to hide it, so for everybody's sake, please don't do that again."\
There's that MAGA projection!

"Does someone need to explain to banks what authorized means?"

Or that there is no such thing as "inside" a customer account?

please tell us the high school mascot there is the squid.