PULSE
AI 认知观点 VIEWPOINT重要度 72

AI代理Instinct:值得冒险一试?

Wired AI · 2026-09-24 · 原题《I Think I Found an AI Agent Worth the Risk》 · 原文约 5 分钟 · 阅读原文 ↗
AI代理Instinct:值得冒险一试? 核心主张:实用性 > 风险,作者选择继续使用 收益 · 为什么值得冒险 形式因素正确 iMessage/WhatsApp交互 无需打开文本框,主动建议 复杂任务实战成功 预订威尼斯餐厅 取消纽约机票并退款 节省550美元 识别钓鱼邮件 忙碌母亲愿承担风险 自动化行政琐事 风险 · 代价与隐患 隐私泄露 保留收件箱副本 易被钓鱼攻击 数据训练条款 ToS允许用对话训练模型 操作失误 错误取消订单 用户损失64美元 仍需大量输入 Jasmine Sun:问题不在软件形状 权衡 结论:作者选择继续使用,实用性压过风险
作者认为,尽管AI代理Instinct存在隐私和安全风险,但其在自动化行政琐事上的实用性让她愿意冒险使用。

论证要点

  1. Instinct通过iMessage和WhatsApp与用户交互,无需打开文本框,形式因素正确,能主动建议并执行任务,且不会过度发消息。
  2. 作者用Instinct成功预订威尼斯餐厅、取消并退款纽约机票(节省550美元),展示了代理处理复杂任务的能力。
  3. AI代理的使用者与从未尝试者之间的鸿沟日益扩大,这解释了科技CEO对数据中心反弹的措手不及。
  4. 技术记者Jasmine Sun指出,大多数人的问题并非软件形状,即使有也未必察觉,AI代理仍需大量用户输入和指导。
  5. Instinct存在显著风险:保留用户收件箱副本、易被钓鱼、Terms of Service允许用对话训练模型,且曾错误取消订单导致用户损失64美元。
  6. 作者最终选择继续使用Instinct,因为它帮助识别了钓鱼邮件,且作为忙碌的母亲,她愿意承担风险。

对实践的启示

对从业者而言,AI代理的实用性已开始显现,但隐私、安全和可靠性问题仍是主要障碍。企业需在形式因素和用户控制上创新,同时解决信任问题,才能吸引主流用户。

作者承认的反方与局限

作者承认Instinct存在大量风险,包括隐私泄露、易被钓鱼、错误操作导致损失,且公司未回应置评请求。

原文摘引

Agents are a security nightmare. I get it! But I’m busy. I’m a mom. Everything feels like a security nightmare these days. For now, I’m willing to take the risk.
▸ 展开原文全文(16 段,抓取自 Wired AI)

Then Instinct, an invite-only AI agent that communicates with users through iMessage and WhatsApp, started popping off in the Bay Area. It connects to your email, calendar, and messaging apps. Think of it as OpenClaw for normies. The company, which launched in private beta in February, is reportedly in talks to raise $1 billion on top of the $350 million it’s already raised, bringing its valuation to $10 billion, according to The Information.

Instinct’s moment in the spotlight comes as Meta is experiencing its own unexpected burst of popularity thanks to Muse, an AI assistant the tech giant launched earlier this month. As of writing, Muse is the most popular free app in Apple’s App Store, with more than 900,000 downloads, according to third-party estimates. The commentator class on X seems genuinely excited about it, despite the fact that it rolled out with a serious security vulnerability that would have “let attackers do ‘whatever’ they wanted on a victim’s Mac,” according to Ars Technica. I’m not about to give Meta a ton of my personal information, but if Muse can keep me logged into Bloomberg or unsubscribe me from Hot Yoga São Paulo, which has been emailing me once a week since 2017, I’ll reconsider.

Agent Provocateur

The divide between people who use AI agents for everything and those who have never tried one has never been wider. It explains, in part, why tech CEOs were largely caught off guard by the data center backlash. If you think agents can automate the majority of people’s administrative drudgery and turbocharge their productivity, the costs and disruptions associated with building data centers might look like an acceptable trade-off. But if you’re using chatbots as a fancy form of Google, that deal is probably much less appealing.

The overarching problem, as technology journalist Jasmine Sun writes, is that “most people’s problems are not software-shaped, and most won’t notice even when they are.” AI agents, like chatbots, still require a lot of input and direction from users. If you know what you want—help with your homework, a virtual girlfriend—the tools are eager to provide. But if you don’t, well, welcome to the permanent underclass.

I was eager to avoid such a fate. I may not be agentic, but I like to think I’m action-oriented. Surely I could identify a software-shaped problem in my life. I had used Claude previously to generate a few freelance invoices, saving me approximately 10 minutes. It was nice, but not life-changing. I decided to give Instinct a try.

If you talk to AI researchers about Instinct, you’ll hear the phrase “form factor” a lot. Instinct got the form factor right—no open text box, just iMessage, WhatsApp, and a few helpful prompts. It’s hard to overstate how important this is. Rather than trying to figure out for yourself how to make the chat experience more useful, you’re texting with an agent that’s suggesting things it can do for you, and then actually doing them. And unlike other agents in this space, it doesn’t text too much. I tried a competing agent called Lindy for a week and deleted it after it texted me each morning and started popping into Zoom meetings without my approval.

For its first project, I gave Instinct my itinerary for a work trip to Venice, Italy. I had it book reservations based on where I was going to be, including WhatsApping hole-in-the-wall spots. Success! Restaurant reservations appear to be a gateway drug for many agent-curious people, and I was no exception. (It’s worth noting that while Muse can also call restaurants to book reservations on your behalf, some of those calls are reportedly made by humans in call centers, according to reporting in 404 Media).

Next, I gave Instinct a more complicated task. I had already booked a trip to New York in November with my sister when WIRED asked me to attend the WIRED World Fair, which was taking place in Miami the day before. Unfortunately, I’d booked a saver fare, meaning I couldn’t move the ticket, and if I missed the first leg of the trip it would automatically cancel the whole thing.

Could Instinct cancel my trip and get a refund? To my surprise, it could. The agent detected that Alaska had moved my flight 90 minutes earlier, a fact I’d completely missed, which qualified me for a full refund. It canceled my ticket, saving me roughly $550, and rebooked my one-way return to San Francisco. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m starting to feel the AGI.

Unnatural Instincts

This is where I have to pause and acknowledge the risks of using Instinct. There are a lot. People have reported that when they tried to disconnect the agent from their email, they found out it was retaining a copy of their inboxes anyway. One venture capitalist said he was banned from Resy after the bot pinged its API roughly 200 times per hour while trying to make a reservation. Another tech investor said he deleted the app after determining that it would be trivially easy for Instinct to be phished.

Instinct’s Terms of Service are pretty far-reaching, allowing the company to use at least some of your conversations to train its AI models. I also experienced an annoying (if minor) snafu: One day, Instinct canceled a DoorDash order that was seriously delayed, forcing me to forfeit $64. (I’d explicitly told it to cancel only if I could get a refund.) This alerted me to another thing Instinct is very, very good at: profusely apologizing without offering to pay for its mistakes.

The company Instinct, which shares the same name as its flagship AI agent, did not respond to requests for comment from WIRED.

Instinct feels like a mildly chaotic personal assistant, and since I’ve never had a real human assistant, I’m sticking with it. Last week it told me “NOT TO OPEN” an email from a friend inviting me to a backyard BBQ—it turned out to be a phishing scam. Agents are a security nightmare. I get it! But I’m busy. I’m a mom. Everything feels like a security nightmare these days. For now, I’m willing to take the risk.

This is an edition of the Model Behavior newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.