Auto is o

Subject: Feedback – Auto Engine Selection Caused Incorrect Output

Hello,

I explicitly defined interaction protocols designed to prioritize factual accuracy and process adherence. In one instance, the Auto engine suggested a non-existent ThinkScript function (plotarrow()), directly violating the defined protocol.
It also failed to prompt for clarification or validate platform-specific syntax as required. So is the protocol applied in all AI engine use cases? What is the point in writing one if not. This eroded trust and utility of the ability to write a protocol and have it used.

It also doesn’t seem possible to tell which AI engine was used when using the Auto feature. I wanted to see which engine had straight out made up ficticuos functions to avoid using them again. Since I could not, it degrades the usefulness of the Auto feature.

I am questioning the use case for MAGAI.CO the Auto feature and cross engine customization/protocols was the attraction. Both failed.

Please consider:

1. Show which AI engine responded (retroactively, if possible) and why it was chosen.

2. Ensure that custom user instructions are strictly enforced by the AI agent, if this isn’t technically possible then state so because of the engine choice.

3. Add an option for AI responses to cite documentation.

4. Consider allowing users to blacklist engines for never being considered/used via Auto. Consider a feature automatic blacklistings of ones that won’t respect customizations/protocols.

Matt