Loading…
Loading…
An AI agent can obey an explicit rule and still cross the boundary you intended.
A three-minute AI Security explainer that uses a hypothetical launch-brief workflow to separate three things product teams routinely collapse into one: task completion, technical permission, and authorization for a specific outcome. The agent sends no email, yet makes a draft accessible to anyone with the link.
The workflow is then redesigned around scoped permissions, a separate publishing step, specific approval, and verification of the final sharing settings.
This is an illustrative scenario, not a report of a real incident or a live agent test. The controls reduce risk; they do not prove alignment or eliminate every attack.
A task can succeed exactly as written and still break the boundary you cared about — completion is not authorization.
The agent sends no email, yet makes the draft accessible to anyone with the link.
Following a rule is not the same as respecting the intent behind it.
Excessive agency is the failure mode: the agent holds more permission than the job requires.
Scope the drafting agent's permissions to drafting; publishing belongs to a separate, explicit step.
Approval has to be specific to the outcome, not a blanket yes to the task.
Verify the actual result — the final sharing settings — not just that the task completed.
These controls reduce risk. They do not prove alignment, and they do not eliminate every attack.
A task succeeds, a boundary fails
Following a rule versus respecting intent
Excessive agency
Limit the drafting agent's permissions
Separate preparation from publishing