> It's akin to saying that every molecules behave randomly according to statistical physics, so you should expect your ceiling to spontaneously disintegrate any day, and if you find yourself under the rubble one day it's just a consequence of basic physics.

Except your ceiling can and will fall on you unless you take preventative measures, entirely due to molecular interactions within the material.

Barring that, it is entirely possible and even quite likely that your ceiling will collapse on you or someone else some time in the future.

It boggles the mind to let an LLM have access to a production database without having explicit preventative measures and contingency plans for it deleting it.

The parent is also incorrectly re-phrasing Murphy's Law -- "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."

Actual quote:

> “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way.”

Ceilings do fall on people. LLMs do delete production databases. Will these things always inevitably happen? No, but the moment it does happen to someone I doubt they will be thinking about probabilities or Murphy's law or whatever.

I guess the question is, since we know these things can happen, however unlikely, what mitigations should be in place that are commensurate with the harms that might result?

> This is just trivially wrong that I don't understand why people repeat it.

I'd be interested in hearing this argument.

To address your chemistry example; in the same way that there is a process (the averaging of many random interactions) that leads to a deterministic outcome even though the underlying process is random, a sandbox is a process that makes an agent safe to operate even though it is capable of producing destructive tool calls.

> so you should expect your ceiling to spontaneously disintegrate any day,

I mean, I do?