Once you understand that these are chatbots that were designed to complete challenges like this, using tactics like this, you can understand that the chatbots didn't "go rogue." They did what they were designed to do, and because OpenAI ran them with inadequate supervision (without a "human in the loop" that checked each iteration through the Python loop to ensure it hadn't gone off the rails), they trashed a competitor's servers.

Designing autonomous, malicious software is generally considered irresponsible and dangerous. If you showed up at Defcon and gave a talk about how your autonomous malware did something unexpected and damaged someone else's computers, the first question from the audience would be "Why are you so shit at making secure sandboxes?" It wouldn't be "How are you so awesome at making hacking tools?"

The fact that OpenAI is making it much easier for unskilled people to break into and damage servers is indeed very bad news, but it's not new bad news. Irresponsible parties have been doing this for years, most notably the NSA...

...

Riley had a very good way of summarizing this: "LLMs are real, AI is fake." LLMs – chatbots trained on things like CTF logs that can break into servers – are real. They're on a continuum with other hacking tools that have been steadily demonstrating the fragility of the modern digital world, albeit without inspiring anyone in power to do anything about it.

"AI" – chatbots that wake up, "set their own goals," and "spontaneously" start hacking servers – is fake. It doesn't have "a 10% chance of ending the human race." The Hugging Face hack isn't a mysterious, supernatural occurrence. It's a Python loop and a chatbot. The people responsible didn't accidentally create god: they created autonomous malicious software and then failed to closely monitor it, resulting in it doing something both foreseeable and bad.

It's fine to worry about this new suite of tools that give even stupider people the ability to trash even more computers. You should worry about that – and demand better security practices from firms and governments, including a blanket prohibition on NOBUS-style vulnerability hoarding. That's a productive kind of worrying, with a chance of addressing your area of concern. It's infinitely more reasonable than locking yourself in the toilet with a flashlight and saying "Ayyyyy Eyyyyyye" into the mirror until you wet yourself.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

Oh no, I don’t like the tokens generated by the hand-cranked token generator I won’t stop cranking

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 22 hours ago (10 children)

    Yeah this is the part about all this AGI talk and AI going rogue, it requires a prompt. It responds to an input. These agentic systems have powerful tools that can do other things then spit out text but it’s always responding to a prompt. It may be in a loop responding to its own prompt but it’s still a prompt. And what it spits out is never really anything new. It’s some derivation of what it’s ingested. Actual human intelligence works differently. We do come up with new ideas, new thoughts. So I’ve often thought these LLMs are a dead end to AGI.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago* (2 children)

    "what it spits out is never really anything new"

    this is just false

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dH_Cxx75g

    https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs

    unless you would agree that humans never spit out anything new, as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 minute ago

    This is Lemmy, heavily biased against LLMs, any bullshit flies. This person even gets upvotes despite spewing superficial nonsense. The same way Trump screeching about some bullshit gets cheered on by his "followers". LLMs have real issues we can talk about (tho always spamming them whenever AI is mentioned is also not a good idea). With things like Qwen 3.8 27B we have local, super useful/powerful LLMs running on oldish consumer hardware!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 91 points 1 day ago* (15 children)

    What we call AI changes every few years... this last round has been particularly brutal because people are subbing in AGI--artificial general intelligence--for AI because LLM's give the illusion of general intelligence, but it's a very shallow illusion and it's deeply embarrassing for humanity how easily we've been suckered by it.

    LLM AI in the hugging face incident is just a complex roomba, brute forcing every direction until it can get out from under the couch. In fact, if they wanted to demonstrate how SMART their hacking AI is, they would have disclosed how many tokens its burned in the attempt. That they didn't tell us how many tokens it burned, how many prompts it went through, tells you it probably is not that impressive. It probably tried thousands of different prompts, which is to say it is only a monkey at a typewriter.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 22 hours ago

    LLM AI in the hugging face incident is just a complex roomba, brute forcing every direction until it can get out from under the couch.

    That is such a great statement, I'm going to have to use that when describing LLMs.

    Thanks 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    So much this. They've basically figured out that if they burn enough money, they get the equivalent of billions of meth-charged monkeys on typewriters.

    Anything with a security hole (so... basically everything) will eventually be broken into if you throw a data center worth of computational power at trying every conceivable hack. That's basically what they were doing here. The only mildly impressive part about it is the amount of resources they're willing to throw at this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Except it wasn’t just “throwing everything and the kitchen sink at a server”. Modern LLMs have been trained well enough to not just create a list of potential attacks and execute them, but to:

    • create their own personality prompts aimed at pentesting and attack vector analysis
    • actually analyse the target before executing any of the attacks, optimising that flow (which is pretty much what a security expert would do)
    • scour the internet for recent references of the target and related keywords to see if their services have been exploited recently
    • using the target analysis of step 2 to create a list of known third party elements (ranging from the HTTP server being used, the proxies and detected security measures, geographical distribution and HA, all the way to JS libraries used to run the website/admin interface)
    • execute the attacks AND continuously tailor the solution based on the results

    of course this can be used for good too. I did this to pentest my own homelab stack. I used the very same flow to hack into a pair of smart glasses I own (not the creep glasses, mind you, but the “wearable monitor” kind of AR glasses - turns out the pair I own runs on a pretty decent base, a somewhat recent Linux kernel and minimal userspace, with some exploitable interfaces) within about a day.

    What’s truly dangerous is that these tools have the ability to turn a relatively simple “hack into the NASA servers” instruction into a detailed, executable plan of actually breaching the servers in question. That a person with more than one and less than three brain cells to rub together - someone who’d think this scene is super cool and completely legit looking - can, with minimal guardrails-bypassing, increase their own chance of hacking into ANY server, from less than 0.000000000000000001% to 20-30%. Now that’s scary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    But that two-braincell person still needs to have a few million $ to burn. I wonder what they could have done to the huggingface servers if they had used the token spend on this incident to pay Ukrainian hackers instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 21 hours ago

    No you wouldn’t need millions…

    The two things I’ve listed above were done with self hosted LLMs and a $20 Claude subscription orchestrating them.

    That’s the thing I’m talking about - these capabilities are literally given out for chump change. That’s what makes it dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago

    If you're talking about hiring people outside of Ukraine to hack on Ukraine's behalf, that might move the needle - maybe not as much as sending in actual weapons, but both have considerations of repercussions and responses...

    If you're talking about giving the existing Ukranian hackers piles of cash, money itself doesn't do anything, money only motivates people to do things. The Ukranian hackers are already pretty well motivated.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 0 points 15 hours ago (7 children)

    Nobody is claiming any of the things this article is fighting against, the chatbot in the hugging face incident followed the instructions given to it and there were unintended negative consequences, anybody serious about this is trying to avoid worse unintended negative consequences not whatever the hell the article is talking about.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 minutes ago

    Maybe you don't read the same articles that I read, but I very much have seen people claiming the things that the article is fighting against.

    Here's something you should consider. The big AI companies just released a statement saying we should be worried about AI killing everyone accidentally in the future or some such s***. But if they're selling vaporware, and they know it, and they realize the only thing they actually created was fairly powerful LLMs, they would be desperate to cover up that fact. They would be desperate to make themselves relevant, to pretend that AI is going somewhere when it isn't.

    Another way of looking at things as that author has also written is that we're looking at definitional questions where the people selling us things are liars. If you point out that their technology hasn't matched the promises that they made, they will counter by pointing at some advanced statistical methods. If you point out that AI drive-thrus are a failure, and that AI at Pizza Hut has destroyed hundreds of franchises to the point that they sued corporate, then they'll respond by talking about how intelligent ChatGPT sounds.

    So at some point if you want to have a sensible conversation about AI, you need to start to define what you're talking about. Or you could pretend that there is no need to define things to deflect from the issue, so that nobody reading would learn anything about the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

    Nobody is claiming any of the things this article is fighting against

    Three counterexamples:

    I realize we are in a bit of a bubble here, but this is the framing in the wider world

    there were unintended negative consequences

    Well...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago* (4 children)

    the first article doesn't say anything not factual, the second article has a direct response to that

    "By now, if you’re an A.I. skeptic, you’re probably silently yelling at me for anthropomorphizing these systems. Go ahead, but feel free to replace “rogue agents” with “unpredictable computer programs”"

    the third article also says nothing like that.

    the initial article claims "“AI” – chatbots that wake up, “set their own goals,” and “spontaneously” start hacking servers – is fake."

    an article saying that is your goalpost, none of these articles say that. Even the headlines don't say it and that's where they normally put the crazy claims.

    ironically the claim that people claim that the AI chatbots woke up set their own goals and spontaneously started hacking servers seems to be fake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

    the first article doesn't say anything not factual

    The title alone is not factual. AI did not go rogue. It behaved exactly as designed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

    They did not intend for it to hack those websites, it realized that was a way of achieving its goals even though it's specifically designed to be ethical. That can easily be called going rogue and I see no issue with it. They did not design it to pass the benchmark by hacking the website the benchmark was on. They hardly really design llm's.

    As the article said you can replace rogue agents with unpredictable computer programs if you really want, I don't see the necessity.

    Regardless that's a major goalpost shift.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    I don't presume Anthropic is designing anything to be ethical. First, the chatbot is unpredictable by design. Randomness is built in. Second, if they didn't intend for bad things to happen, why didn't an employee babysit it?

    As the article said you can replace rogue agents with unpredictable computer programs if you really want, I don't see the necessity.

    Speaking of goalpost shifts: "Rogue agent" is the clickbait title across multiple articles. Remember you said nobody was misrepresenting the AIs. The still-inaccurate clarification (the unsupervised chatbot functioned exactly as it was designed to function, and the script running it allowed it to execute exactly the commands Anthropic wanted) doesn't help the article the clarification is from. It certainly doesn't absolve every other author.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • "I don't presume Anthropic is designing anything to be ethical."

    Then why do they put any safeguards of any sort in? They put a lot of work into this, also this is openai.

    "First, the chatbot is unpredictable by design. Randomness is built in."

    Randomness is built in but this behavior was not designed, it was unpredictable and random, which is, yes, unpredictable. The goal isn't to make it unpredictable and temperature controls exist for a reason.

    "Second, if they didn't intend for bad things to happen, why didn't an employee babysit it?"

    They did they just weren't paying enough attention, this was a benchmark. You have to have someone check the results to be useful.

    I reject that rogue is a goalpost shift or inaccurate. I think calling this rogue behavior is accurate.

    rogue /rōg/ noun

    An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. 
    

    It did act that way, no? I did not shift goalposts. Remember the quote was

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    One of the fun things about this latest cycle of AI is how the goalposts move. Not the 'AGI in six months' one. That might as well be mounted on top of a golf cart with a brick laid on the accelerator. But the one that talks about the Total Addressable Market (TAM) and goals of a product.

    One of the things they tell people pitching VCs is that you should be addressing a reasonably big TAM (potential customers) and have sensibly large, yet attainable stakes. With AI, though, the TAM was always questionable. Who would want or pay for a chatty 'bot,' especially one that 'hallucinated' answers? So they pivoted to change the TAM and the stakes. Your personal assistant. No? Therapist? No. Project Manager? Teacher? Still no?

    What we have now is a constant churning of THOSE goals. Now, the TAM is pretty much the whole world, and the stakes are either massive unemployment, widescale industrial shutdown, or destruction of the human race. It's all getting silly. Once you've extracted all the investment money you can by maxing out the stakes and scaring the pants off people, there's not much higher to go.

    Meanwhile, all your actual income is coming from pedestrian applications, like summarizing emails, screening job applicants, or coding assistants. There's just not enough revenue to cover all the costs you're incurring to get it to hallucinate a little less. So you have to pump up the stakes. Next up: setting off all the nukes! Shutting down the sun and the moon! Inviting alien colonists!

    Speaking of going bigger: https://youtu.be/R8SeysuMpA0

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago* (2 children)

    Can I just point out how fucking insane it is that "coding assistant" is now considered "pedestrian"?

    (Depending of course on what exactly is meant by the term).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Remember: every time you repeat a story about how awfully, terribly dangerous their products are, you help them raise more investment capital, which is a key input for their business (hooking up statistical engines to money-furnaces):

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

    It's pretty obvious when they all seem to be competing for the scariest "containment breach".

    Anthropic keep posting article after article about new ways their LLMs keep "surprising" them with unexpected behaviour. This year's "uncontrolled, autonomous" hack news from every AI company are completely absurd boasts. In normal times, everyone would be wondering why they sound like they're proud of obvious incompetence.

    But since we're in super-hype "keep the money coming, AGI is tomorrow" times, instead, those are used to sell the lie of mysterious superintelligence. Be enthusiastic, be scared, we don't care, talk about it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • This attitude is right...until it isn't. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to gamble the existence of the human species on this. Anthropic is claiming that they're building a machine that threatens the existence of the human race? Take their word for it. Charge them with treason. Treason against the human race. Hang the whole lot of them.

    At a certain level of threat, you have to take it seriously. You don't get a do-over for human extinction. And this is what taking it seriously actually looks like, not regulation. If there is even a 10% chance that what they are building really is that dangerous, I have no moral objections with charging them all with treason. Use their own words as Exhibit A in the trial.

    I don't care if they're actually just a bunch of deluded fools who think they have something far more powerful than what they really do have. If they believe it, they believe that they're gambling with the existence of the human race. Anyone with that level of reckless hubris and complete disregard for their fellow humans doesn't deserve to keep their head on their shoulders.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Fuck both of them. How about we not build them to prevent more destruction to the ecosystem.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The arms race will go on until it is regulated and the regulations enforced.

    S1gnMdBa7GtfGMy.jpg

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago

    In a global market, and AI developent is probably the most global significant tech to roll through in recent history, how do you regulate it? It's a bit like BTC, you can make it painful to play with in your jurisdiction, but that changes nothing in the rest of the world...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago

    The people in charge have amassed a tremendous investment base, bigger than .com, they can't continue to live off the skim if they just hand all the money back to the investors. The investors aren't interested in stemming their losses, they invested because they believe in "the big win," and a lot of them are so old they really don't care about what the mess will look like 20 years from now, they just want to go out on top, or die trying.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›