LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.

So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.

Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.

Simply download Ollama and run a few cellphone-sized models locally.
you can see exactly how Fing useless this whole idea will be for nearly all cases of trying to get anything useful with ah high degree of inaccuracy from it.
If you're stupid enough to hand any control of your life to Openclaw, then you deserve all the bad things you will inevitably get. Let's just call openclaw "Darwin in action"

No what is un-slashdot worthy is posting a reply while clearly being completely uninformed about the subject.

OK Mr. smarty pants. Please inform yourself about the case, (watching Moment of Contact is a good entree) then you provide a rational alternative hypothesis to us all.

I suggest you inform yourself about the case, perhaps watch "Moment of Contact" first, before you make a fool of yourself by posting a derisory "noting unusual happened" post.

A lot of apparently credible people (including doctors etc) have a common story. A cop actually died as a result of handling the alien. You can;t simply make a death up and it's clearly being covered up by governments. There are too many credible witnesses to say nothing happened at all. The only question is what.

Yes it really has.Just some (far from all) more recent examples where Dems have tried to remove personal freedoms:
Gun ownership and Second Amendment Rights, Healthcare Mandates (The ACA), COVID-19 Mandates (Vaccines/Masks), Environmental Regulations, multiple Labor and Economic Regulations.
Before you incorrectly label me a Republican, I don't support them either.

History has shown us that if anything, Democrats are even less inclined to personal liberty than Republicans.
All it takes is one "think of the children" argument and all the Dems will be lining up to sign.

..with only US-made gear, the NSA can get their hooks and backdoors in everywhere?

>> these monsters to persuade others (or even believe) they are authorized by god

This is just one more reason to not be religious (I mean besides the complete lack of empirical evidence that any gods even exist).

So the (elected) president (is supposed to) act in the interest of the country/American people. So yeah there is a rationale for a law there. whether you personally agree with what he decides is basically irrelevant to the law. Your only say comes at election time.
Re: murdering people being OK as long as they are overseas. Of course murder isn't ever OK but rightly or wrongly it is generally held by every government and nearly all religions that a) people die in war and b) it's not the same as murder. Presumably because both governments and religions like to be able to start and also justify their wars.
Also my admittedly vague understanding of US law (I'm not American) is that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does allow Trump the freedom to unilaterally act for up to 60/90 days before he has to pull out or get congressional authorisation to continue.
Again if you don't like it, tell your congressman and use your vote.
I'm not on either side, I'm just trying to be fact-based and informed rather than simply base a ranty argument only on feelings, and who I like/dislike personally.

>> But what *is* 'illegal' really?
You seem to be implying that "illegal" is just based on some arbitrary line, such that it's morally ok to cross the line as long as it benefits you. I know this is common thinking in the USA but I think it's very wrong.
It seems to me that mostly what "illegal" boils down to is "doing things that (directly or indirectly) hurt other people in the same society that you live in".

So basically it's going to be a brick every time you've got no internet, also your entire life is going to be on Amazon's servers?

Yeah for me no fricking way thanks but I'll bet a whole herd of sheeple will still buy it for some shiny bauble feature.

>> space adventures in their 50s sounds like a pretty dubious concept

I'd like to award you a hearty "fuck you" from all us Gen-X'ers.