you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 1 month ago (22 children)

Agreed. It's not sensible or practical to ban AI, and Linus is right. Why is Linus right? Take a look at the number of Linux CVEs being patched over time. In 2022-23, that was about 300 per year. Last year it was 5530. This is almost entirely as a result of AI scanning tools, including Copy Fail priv escalation that was there for 8 years. The security apocalypse is just about arrived, and the most recent round of cyber models coming out do this way better than before. The Hugging Face incident story was truly unbelievable if you read / watch the details, a historic event. Everything is about to get hacked. So it'll be all about maintainers being reactive to this new reality and burden for some time to come

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There is a difference between using AI scanning tools and generating code for production

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Yes and no. The ability to "understand" code that makes AI capable of finding security bugs, is correlated with AI's ability to write code. AI is just really good at code related tasks, and categorically banning all AI usage is shooting yourself in the foot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    The Hugging Face incident story was truly unbelievable if you read / watch the details

    It didn't really seem that way? Leaving containment seemed more like a configuration oversight than a skill on the part of the model. Accessing HF involved an 0-day but the commentary I saw didn't indicate that it was a next generation hack.

    Given that AI exists, and can scan or otherwise find vulnerabilities, maintainers must do so because threat actors inevitably will.

    It remains to be seen whether the whole race will improve security generally? I imagine not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Nah, it was like:

    • 700 agents broke out individually during an eval
    • they navigated through multiple internal clusters to reach the internet from oai
    • created a secret message board to share info with each other by hacking artifactory
    • elected a CEO and power structure to coordinate hacking, and encrypted their comms
    • decided HF probably had answers to their test
    • stole credentials, hacked HF
    • realized the monitor could catch them for cheating
    • hacked into the admin control of the OpenAI VM cluster to edit the logs and cover their tracks, chaining multiple 0-days

    Open weights models will catch up soon enough, and then it'll be totally fucking wild

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago

    You are believing a notorious bunch of liars.

    Much more probably: they developed a cyberweapon and tested it in the wild. The victim caught them so they invented a cyberpunk history to increase the interest of potential buyers for that weapon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I basically just don't believe you, and can't be bothered looking.

    elected a CEO and power structure to coordinate hacking, and encrypted their comms

    You're anthropomorphizing a statistical model. It's laughable to suggest they "elected a CEO and power structure".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

    But the ai could generate text to that effect, if it was statistically likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    That the ai could produce text claiming that it has elected a ceo. I don't know how else to restate it. Throw me a rope here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    It’s laughable to suggest they “elected a CEO and power structure”.

    When/if we meet aliens, they will have evolution. And they will organize themselves in social power structures. Both are examples of basic emergent complexity properties of any such system.

    So it is completely believable that AIs would form a power structure, with some form of CEO. That is just how reality works, such systems are more efficient so they happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Why are you even using the term CEO?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    AI learned from humans, and humans texts use the term CEO. Why wouldn't the AI's also use the term CEO?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Because a CEO is a specific thing with a specific meaning that just isn't relevant here. It's laden with human meaning that is irrelevant to a statistical model.

    Really you're trying to say that the bots coordinated their efforts, and perhaps one of them was delegating tasks.

    This type of structure is very common in tech, in load balancers or queues of service workers, containers and hypervisors, et cetera.

    Power structures that seem logical and efficient to humans are not so for a gen AI model. If everyone knows what needs to be done and no one has any ego or character traits to manage, then everyone can simply perform the next task as it arises.

    Its absolutely absurd to suggest that the bots elected a CEO.

  • source
  • parent