An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's confession is below

Re:An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's ... by maxbond on Sunday April 26, 2026 @04:10PM (#47913752)

I'd be interested to hear why my restatement was incorrect. I'm confident that it's what Murphy meant, mostly because I've read his other laws and that's what I recall as the general through line. But that's was a long time ago and perhaps I'm misremembering or was misinterpreting at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's ... by caminante on Monday April 27, 2026 @09:19AM (#47921210)

Sorry, didn't mean for my comment to come off mean. I can see how it is pedantic or maybe more subjective opinion.

Your phrasing is right.

I was just doing a quick take on this qualifier:

> which is not prevented by a strong engineering control

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's ... by maxbond on Monday April 27, 2026 @09:55AM (#47921624)

I appreciate it, but it didn't come off as mean and I appreciate the correction. Incidentally Murphy apparently didn't write a whole set of laws so I have no idea what I read to that impression. I did some reading and there are interesting interpretations I hadn't considered that are more pessimistic, which is perhaps what you were flagging. Like that when you add more engineering controls, you create new vulnerabilities, and so things will continue to "go wrong".

If I use this phrasing again I'll present as something derived from or analogous to Murphy's Law rather than a "restatement".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's ... by caminante on Monday April 27, 2026 @10:55AM (#47922473)

> Like that when you add more engineering controls, you create new vulnerabilities, and so things will continue to "go wrong".

Yes! Thanks for the grace.

[ Parent | on HN ]