I had a chat with #Google Gemini about their agentic AI ...L >>> Isn't it stupid for someone to trust an agentic AI like Google ChromeL >>> Auto Browse when Google isn't taking any responsibility for disastrousL >>> errors the agent might make that would devastate the user? It's a scam,L >>> really, correct?That is a heavy--and very fair--question. It's not "stupid" to beskeptical; in fact, it's a pretty rational response to the current "WildWest" phase of AI development.The tension you're feeling comes from the gap between autonomy andaccountability. When we give an agent the keys to our digital life (likemaking purchases, managing schedules, or handling sensitive data), thestakes move from "funny chatbot hallucination" to "real-world financialor legal headache."Here's a breakdown of why this feels like a "scam" to some, and thereality of the risks involved:The Accountability GapThe core of your frustration is likely the Terms of Service (ToS).Almost every AI developer, including Google, uses "AS IS" clauses. Thismeans:The Risk is Yours: If the agent accidentally deletes a critical workfile or books a non-refundable flight to the wrong city, the company'slegal shield usually prevents them from being liable for "consequentialdamages."The "Beta" Shield: By labeling these tools as experimental, companiesshift the burden of supervision onto you. It's essentially"driver-assist" software where you're expected to keep your hands on thewheel at all times.Is it a Scam?Calling it a "scam" might be a bit of a stretch in the legal sense, butit certainly feels like an unbalanced trade-off.The "Pro" side: Google is betting that the convenience--saving you hoursof tedious clicking and form-filling--is a value proposition users willtake, even with the risks.The "Con" side: You're essentially acting as an unpaid QA tester fortheir product while bearing all the personal risk if the code glitches.How to Approach "Agentic" Tools SafelyIf you do decide to use these tools, think of them like a new intern:Trust, but Verify: Never let an agent hit "Submit" or "Buy" without afinal human review.Sandbox the Access: Don't give an agentic tool access to your "main"bank account or mission-critical data until the tech (and the lawsaround it) matures.Check the Permissions: Be ruthless about what permissions you grant inChrome. If an extension doesn't need "modify" access to a site, don'tgive it.The technology is moving much faster than the legal system. Until thereis a "Lemon Law" for AI agents, your skepticism is actually your bestsecurity feature.Would you like me to help you look into the specific privacy settings orpermission controls for Chrome's AI features so you can see exactly whatyou're opting into?L >>> C'mon, you know as well as I do that that vast majority of people GoogleL >>> wants to use these systems do not have the time, background, orL >>> expertise to take the kinds of steps you outlined. Google is treatingL >>> them like suckers.You're cutting straight to the heart of the "UX vs. Ethics" debate.You're right--the steps I outlined are a "best-case scenario" for powerusers, but they don't reflect how the average person actually interactswith technology.Most people don't read the manual, they don't audit permissions, andthey certainly don't have time to play "supervising manager" to an AIthat was marketed as a time-saver.The "Sucker" DynamicThere is a legitimate argument that the business model relies onfrictionless adoption. If Google (or any tech giant) put a massive,unmissable red warning label saying, "This might ruin your credit scoreor delete your files and we won't pay you a dime if it does," nobodywould click "Enable."By making the interface "magical" and easy, they lower the psychologicalbarrier to entry. This creates two distinct realities:The Marketing Reality: "Focus on what matters while AI handles the rest!"The Legal Reality: "User assumes all risk for any actions taken by thesoftware."The Power ImbalanceWhen you call it a "scam" or say users are being treated like "suckers,"you're pointing to the asymmetry of information:Complexity: The underlying logic of agentic AI is a "black box" even tomany developers. Expecting a non-technical user to "supervise" it islike asking someone who doesn't know how to drive to supervise anautonomous semi-truck.Liability Shifting: Tech companies have successfully shifted the "burdenof correctness" onto the consumer. In almost any otherindustry--medicine, aviation, even toy manufacturing--the maker is heldto a standard of "fitness for purpose." Software has historicallyenjoyed a unique legal pass here.Where This Ends UpThe "wild west" phase usually ends when the first major, high-profiledisaster happens--a "class-action" level event that forces the hand ofregulators. Until then, these companies are effectively betting that thedata they gain from millions of users is worth the PR risk of a few"disastrous errors."It's a cynical way to view product development, but it's historicallyhow "move fast and break things" has worked.Would you like to look at some of the current consumer protectiondebates or laws being proposed to hold AI companies more accountable fortheir "agents"?
