I mean the agents we get to use in Claude code or cursor or whatever have 1. a lot of safeguards at the harness level, 2. a big system prompt to help it stay aligned, 3. resource limits in terms of context and tokens, and 4. are publicly released only after some level of safety verification (I assume).

So yeah I would absolutely expect their scenario to be very different. Not to mention, this was a training run, not just average day of prompting.

> my agents also discover what other agents have done on other machines by accident.

Not sure if this is facetious, but this is actually a real problem I’ve seen. My local agent will look up PRs on GitHub (what other agents have done on other machines), and will go down a certain path because it finds some comment a different agent left on GitHub saying XYZ is what we should be doing. When in reality, the original agent and that GH comment was completely incorrect.

They are not communicating with each other actively because that’s not accomplishing their goal and they’re not running for weeks and weeks. And because my own prompt and the system prompt give it enough other stuff to focus on to reach some definition of done. But they are clearly passively picking up on context that other agents have left anyways, even if not part of the codebase, without any prompting at all.