How do you define a useful security verdict for an AI agent?
DiscussionHealthy802 · reddit · 2026-09-04
A Reddit practitioner is testing a workflow that keeps detection, evidence, verdict, and human confirmation as separate steps when judging AI agent security findings: a suspicious pattern in a PR or tool description is worth investigating, but doesn't prove the agent can reach a credential or cause a side effect. The post asks how others decide when a finding is strong enough to block a run, and what evidence they keep.
More from Safety
- METR/Redwood report tops NYT front page; access limits may hide worse findings — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-04
- DHH slams useless GDPR cookie banners, warns of what happens when governments define AI — Dan_Jeffries1 · 2026-09-04
- Zero failure rate on alignment evals is a red flag, warn safety researchers — connoraxiotes · 2026-09-04
- Apple presents new evidence against ex-employee accused of stealing data for OpenAI — emmanuelvivier · 2026-09-04
- EU Commission designates ChatGPT a very large search engine, adding DSA obligations for OpenAI — emmanuelvivier · 2026-09-04
- Instagram throttles unlabeled AI personas; FSB warns G20 of frontier AI cyber risk — emmanuelvivier · 2026-09-04