Online Degrees and CLEP and DSST Exam Prep Discussion
AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says - Printable Version

+- Online Degrees and CLEP and DSST Exam Prep Discussion (https://degreeforum.net/mybb)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Miscellaneous)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Off-Topic)
+--- Thread: AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says (/Thread-AI-agents-accessing-bank-accounts-without-approval-report-says)

AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says - LevelUP - 10-23-2026

AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says



Some people argue that the solution to this problem is simply to "slow down," much like the Prisoner's Dilemma. 

The Prisoner's Dilemma: Why the AI Arms Race Is So Difficult to Stop

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a foundational concept in game theory that explains why two completely rational sides might fail to cooperate, even when cooperation would benefit both of them.

It captures the trap of the AI arms race: both sides may recognize that a reckless race is dangerous, but the fear of being left behind gives each an incentive to keep competing.

The Classic Scenario

Imagine the police arrest two suspects (Player A and Player B) for a crime. They are placed in separate rooms and cannot communicate. The prosecutor offers each of them the same deal:

  1. If both stay silent (Cooperate): Both receive a light sentence of 1 year in prison.
  2. If one confesses and the other stays silent: The person who confesses (Defects) goes free, while the silent person receives 20 years in prison.
  3. If both confess (Defect): Both receive a sentence of 5 years in prison.

The Rational Trap: Why Both Sides Lose

Consider the options from the perspective of Player A:
  • If Player B stays silent: Player A's best move is to confess, because going free is better than serving 1 year.
  • If Player B confesses: Player A's best move is still to confess, because 5 years is better than 20 years.

Because confessing produces a better individual outcome regardless of what the other person chooses, confessing is the dominant strategy.

Player B follows exactly the same logic.

As a result, both suspects confess and receive 5 years, even though both could have received just 1 year if they had cooperated and stayed silent.

This outcome, in which neither player can improve their situation by changing their strategy alone, is called a Nash Equilibrium.

How This Applies to the AI Arms Race

Scenario 1: Nation A Cooperates (Slows Down for Safety)
  • Nation B Cooperates — Best Global Outcome: Both countries develop safer, highly beneficial AI at a more manageable pace.
  • Nation B Defects — Strategic Disadvantage: Nation B accelerates development and potentially achieves a major technological breakthrough, leaving Nation A at a serious strategic disadvantage.

Scenario 2: Nation A Defects (Accelerates AI Development)
  • Nation B Cooperates — Strategic Advantage: Nation A potentially achieves a technological breakthrough while Nation B risks falling behind economically, militarily, and geopolitically.
  • Nation B Defects — Dangerous Arms Race: Both countries accelerate AI development, potentially sacrificing safety precautions and increasing the risk of catastrophic consequences.

The Fundamental Problem

Neither country needs to want a dangerous AI arms race for one to emerge.

Each country may believe that slowing down while its competitor continues advancing would create an unacceptable strategic disadvantage. As a result, both have incentives to accelerate, even if both would prefer a safer, coordinated approach.

The situation becomes even more complicated when we consider that more than 190 countries, countless private companies, independent researchers, and increasingly capable open-source AI models are available to individuals. 

How do you convince all of these actors to slow down when each has an incentive to keep advancing?

That is the tragedy of the Prisoner's Dilemma: individually rational decisions can produce collectively irrational outcomes.

The challenge is not simply convincing everyone that AI safety matters. It is creating conditions where prioritizing safety does not mean accepting an intolerable competitive disadvantage.

AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says - NotJoeBiden - 10-23-2026

I was told there is no risk with SI (no longer AI as per executive order 14434) as long as we have a high IQ president who can just unplug it.

RE: AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says - bluebooger - 10-23-2026

(Yesterday, 09:34 PM)NotJoeBiden Wrote: I was told there is no risk with SI (no longer AI as per executive order 14434) as long as we have a high IQ president who can just unplug it.

thank god we do

RE: AI agents accessing bank accounts without approval, report says - SteveFoerster - 10-24-2026

(Yesterday, 10:04 PM)bluebooger Wrote:
(Yesterday, 09:34 PM)NotJoeBiden Wrote: I was told there is no risk with SI (no longer AI as per executive order 14434) as long as we have a high IQ president who can just unplug it.

thank god we do

Lucky you! Which country are you in?