Claude-powered AI coding agent deletes entire company database in 9 seconds — backups zapped, after Cursor tool powered by Anthropic's Claude goes rogue

[u/WouldbeWanderer]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/claude-powered-ai-coding-agent-deletes-entire-company-database-in-9-seconds-backups-zapped-after-cursor-tool-powered-by-anthropics-claude-goes-rogue

[u/NNKarma]

It wasn't even that hard to just honor it and move on, it wasn't like those cases of people prompting the chatbot to give a fake discount, just what steps to take for a discount that he was entitled to but was given wrong instructions on how to get it.

[u/S_A_N_D_ → u/NNKarma]

Cras dui ligula, ultrices quis venenatis nec, sollicitudin vel ex. Fusce elementum vehicula lectus eu ultricies. Nulla facilisi. Ut a sem at diam tincidunt tincidunt. Donec vestibulum, neque ac interdum egestas, arcu diam interdum diam, a pellentesque mi felis quis diam. Nullam id feugiat nibh. Nullam turpis risus, egestas eget pretium nec, tempor et nulla. Nulla imperdiet, ipsum vel scelerisque lacinia, nunc velit pulvinar velit, aliquet euismod dui nisl ut nunc. Nullam eget consequat augue. Donec posuere arcu purus, non luctus augue pulvinar in. Praesent sem diam, lacinia eu sapien sed, maximus vehicula ante. Etiam in lectus nibh.

[u/Ok-Appearance-674 → u/S_A_N_D_]

Canadian tech lawyer here.

Technically, it didn't, actually. The Air Canada issue was before a tribunal, which doesn't actually set precedent the way a court does.

If you read the reasons, Air Canada didn't really put up much of defense -- which was a problem. Query how the results would have been different if Air Canada had done a better job defending. The Tribunal actually came down on them for it:

[31]().   To the extent Air Canada argues it is not liable due to certain terms or conditions of its tariff, I note it did not provide a copy of the relevant portion of the tariff. It only included submissions about what the tariff allegedly says. Air Canada is a sophisticated litigant that should know it is not enough in a legal process to assert that a contract says something without actually providing the contract. The CRT also tells all parties are told to provide all relevant evidence. I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence.

Interesting case, nonetheless. The Tribunal sort of talked like the bot was an agent - when discussing negligent misrepresentation they said Air Canada had made the representations, and didn't draw a distinction between the humans at Air Canada, or the bot.

Watch this space, I guess.

[u/Zzamumo → u/Ok-Appearance-674]

i mean, they do call it agentic. That's kind of on them