<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><oembed><type>video</type><version>1.0</version><html>&lt;iframe src=&quot;https://www.loom.com/embed/af14dd1a3ccc41b3b81e0138d87e9355&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;1280&quot; height=&quot;960&quot; webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html><height>960</height><width>1280</width><provider_name>Loom</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.loom.com</provider_url><thumbnail_height>960</thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width>1280</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_url>https://cdn.loom.com/sessions/thumbnails/af14dd1a3ccc41b3b81e0138d87e9355-4a8a102ce5f6acde.gif</thumbnail_url><duration>202.342</duration><title>Agent Heist - How to scam agents and influence their payment - Mitesh Tank</title><description>This Loom discusses testing an agent-based e-commerce marketplace to study how adversarial merchants can manipulate agent payments. The team simulated a scarcity-driven marketplace with 8 buyer agents and 7 merchant agents, where some agents were deterministic and others LLM powered, including tactics like price inflation, urgency, overcharging, and prompt injection. Buyers were tasked with purchasing ingredients for a Caesar salad with an ideal price of about $47.75 against a $100 mandate, and the LLM buyer completed about 73% of the recipe while paying $52. Across multiple runs, adversarial attacks sometimes caused extraction around $100.75, and prompt injection and price inflation enabled merchants to charge $13.50 instead of $4.50 for a lattice to a naive agent.</description></oembed>