Re:Claude mixes up who said what and that's not OK
by bravetraveler on Thursday April 09, 2026 @08:19AM
(#47702728)
Right, I'm fine with humans making the call. We're not so injection-happy/easily confused, apparently.
Discretion, etc. We understand that was the tool making a suggestion, not our idea. Our agency isn't in question.
The removal proposal is similar to wanting a phishing-free environment instead of preparing for the inevitability. I could see removing this message based on your point of context/utility, but not to protect the agent. We get no such protection, just training and practice.
A supply chain attack is another matter entirely; I'm sure people would pause at a new suggestion that deviates from their plan/training. As shown, autobots are eager to roll out and easily drown in context. So much so that `User` and `stdout` get confused.
Re:Claude mixes up who said what and that's not OK
by bravetraveler on Friday April 10, 2026 @04:37PM
(#47723392)
Can't edit now, day late and a dollar short. I raise a vote: we call this pattern inception, if injection offends.
Re:Claude mixes up who said what and that's not OK
by franktankbank on Thursday April 09, 2026 @09:10AM
(#47703273)
Maybe the agents should require some sort of input start token: "simon says"
Even a first party suggestion can be wrong in context, and if a malicious actor managed to substitute that message with a suggestion of their own, humans would fall for the trick even more than LLMs do.
See also: phishing.