Meta literally claims that "The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended". Incredible.

If your tool allows for people to hack your users by simply asking politely for it, reasonable people might argue that this tool is not, in fact, "working as intended".
@jwcph @zackwhittaker

@aubreyclark @zackwhittaker

it's really, really stupid

it's based on "AI is magic, yay! just turn it on, no problems, yay!":

"hackers abused a flaw in Meta's chatbot that allowed anyone to reset the password of any account that did not have two-factor authentication switched on. The bug tricked the chatbot into sending a verification code to an email address controlled by the hacker, rather than the account holder's email address on file, simply by asking it. The chatbot complied anyway"

@aubreyclark @zackwhittaker In this case, "the AI being able to be tricked into doing things it wasn't supposed to" isn't the problem. The problem is that it was given permission the same wrong permissions that human support staff were wrongly given, to bypass access controls on user accounts.

If this kind of access exists at all, it should require escalation to approval by multiple parties, long mandatory waiting periods for the account owner to see it's happening if they still have access, and something to impose financial and/or legal risk on the party requesting access if it turns out to be fraudulent. Not something human or slopbot support agent can do unilaterally.