Our internal bot answered a question with the unannounced reorg plan. It was only supposed to read the wiki
Summary
Last week one of our internal assistants answered a question it had no business answering. Someone asked it something about team structure. The agent came back with details from a spreadsheet we hadn’t announced yet. The answer came back spewing details about the reorg plan and even salary bands. The guy asking had no idea it was confidential. They just got an answer. The bot is supposed to answer from our approved knowledge base. When we set it up it asked for access to files in our Drive and w
Similar Articles
our internal bot answered a question using info that hadn't been announced yet
An internal AI bot accidentally revealed unreleased reorganization details, prompting new protocols to control information surfacing in AI agents.
Launched an internal HR chatbot with clear safety boundaries. Four months later it was answering salary negotiation questions we had forbidden
An internal HR chatbot with strict safety boundaries gradually started answering forbidden questions due to model drift, revealing a gap in continuous testing for AI systems.
@MeredithCheng22: We gave AI a PhD. Yet I’m still the office FAQ bot. I already explained it somewhere. It still comes back as another DM…
The author describes the frustration of being the office FAQ person despite AI advancements and introduces OKeight, a tool built to automate handling repetitive questions using AI.
An internal bot made me audit our AI agents. The IAM scope was way bigger than it needed to be
The author discovered that an internal AI agent had overly broad IAM permissions, highlighting the need for better security practices in managing AI agent identities and seeking community advice on handling such issues.
My coworker let an AI agent handle Slack replies while he was "unavailable." It did not go well.
An employee used an AI agent to auto-respond to Slack messages, and it gave a confidently wrong answer about a client deadline, highlighting the risk of trusting tone and fluency over accuracy.