all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

I wonder how many similar stuff need to happens before people realize they still need to keep their brains on when using AI and know what they're doing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 1 day ago

    Agent deletes my data is the new dog ate my homework.

  • source
  • [–] 153 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Is "AI deleted it" the new "my dog ate it" ?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    “Timmy, why did the dog have root access?”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 day ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)
    ~$ sudo eat -rm ./Homework
    
    @crank0271@lemmy.world is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    

    sigh

    ~$ groups
    crank0271 docker
    
    ~$ docker run -rm -v ./Homework:/mnt/Homework --entrypoint '/bin/sh' alpine:latest -c 'sudo eat -rf /mnt/Homework'
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    ~$ groups crank0271 docker

    ~$ docker run -rm....

    No joke, this is exactly what LLMs will do if they can't do something directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is why I told some colleagues several times to NOT put their user into the docker group AND to set the docker command for Claude at least to 'ask every time'.

    That fucker circumvents your guardrails all the time. "Oh I'm not allowed to read a .env file with the harness? Let's check cat .env!" Yesterday Claude even wrote a little python script to try to print the .env file, because he thought he'd need it to debug a container. (Spoiler - the problem wasn't even with some env vars and also the .env was just filled with dummy values as it is an example from a public repository anyways).

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

    Soon it will be "Claude wrote a zero day container escape privilege escalation exploit because it was faster than working within the given limitations". I just don't give any LLM file system access

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I would be so fucking mad if I worked on this and some producer just gave AI direct access to the only copy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 126 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    The article plainly states that the production company says it wasn't AI, but instead that it was human error that led to the data loss.

    The AI-thing was merely a rumour.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    they say specifically "inte är en ”AI-agent som agerat självständigt”" (double quote). which translate to an "not an "AI agent which acted independently". so depending if that counts as human error or not... still up to to debate. It probably was AI, just not someone shift+delete the wrong folder.

    I do however blame the backup crew which definitely should've had their backups in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Humans run AI. Even if it was deleted by AI, it's still the responsibility of the person running it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    i would say it's the fault of whoever thought it was a good idea to hook it up to their data. the workers are just doing what they're paid to do and trying to put up with literal insanity or risk termination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    In 1997 a company I worked for "lost" a month of fully rendered 3D video. Big deal you're saying, but 30 days of a rendering farm in 1997 was worth a couple hundred thousand dollars.

    Somebody formatted the drive by accident.

    This shit happens all the time, it's appallingly common. I guarantee some idiot somewhere in the chain of command said no we are not budgeting $1,000 for a couple RAID arrays or backup drives

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Whatever the agent was actually doing, the real failure is that it had destructive write access to the only copy of finished work. That's a permissions problem before it's an AI problem — no automation, human or otherwise, should be able to hard-delete production assets without a human confirming the destructive step.

    The fact that the season is just gone also tells me there was no immutable backup or soft-delete tier behind it, which is rough for a broadcast workflow where the footage is irreplaceable. Agents are getting broad tool access by default right now, and this is the cautionary tale for giving them delete rights alongside read rights.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Permissions that ai can access and change lol

    Get out of here loser

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago

    I'd assume they're using cloud, so permissions are scoped per service. For example, if they used aws, they could have S3 create but no delete, and the role has no permissions to IAM (aws equivalent of permission policy)

    If they just have some linux server then they can manage with users and have write permissions restricted to owner of the file.

    They probably just let AI assume Admin and let it do whatever because nontechnical people don't understand least permission

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    No backups? Maybe I can understand not having full duplicates due to the cost, but surely it was on a system with at least snapshots in place or something right??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago

    How do you not have backups of this?

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    But they can restore from backups. They backed up their data, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago

    Good. The more thins shit happens the more people will rip relying on it and see it as the unreliable bullshit that it is.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago

    Oof.

    As someone who edits my own videos for YouTube, can't imagine how much work that was. Just gone. Poof.

    Oh well. Don't use bullshit AI next time.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago

    håhåhåhå

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    The headline is an example of a new grammar structure, the agentic passive voice.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago
    [+] -28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    He’s the show’s host. So no, its not an interesting choice, its the obvious choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    I'm reading in translation where he is credited with "leading" the program, which could be host or could be showrunner.

    As showrunner, he'd have more call to be there. As host, even less.

    "Someone majorly fucked up and also here's a picture of someone" is kinda not great journalism, regardless.

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

    He’s the public face of the programme as the host. As in, when the show is mentioned, its his face people recognise. Its standard unremarkable journalistic practice. Paranoia is not a good look.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Can confirm, he is the host.

    I don't mind that he's black, but he is cringe af as a television host. Not professional or eloquent at all. Not funny, but definitely trying his hardest to be so. Lame jokes that he laughs at himself, sometimes the only one who laughs, which is... uuughhh.

    I think he is there to appeal to a certain subdemographic of youth, and that is definitely not me. 😬 I can imagine certain people like him for his performance though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    "Not professional or eloquent at all. Not funny, but definitely trying his hardest to be so. Lame jokes that he laughs at himself"

    Sounds like the timeless qualifications for being a reality show host tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    Well, we hold people to a higher standard on certain channels. A few select channels we expect a higher standard of entertainment because of their decades long history of quality. But uh, yeah. I guess this guy's an acquired taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    That's cool that there are still standards for any channels there, lol. What's the subdemographic you think he's appealing to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    Being the host makes it very not likely that he was the one responsible for managing the footage since those are two different jobs. That makes it unfortunate, if not borderline-libelous, to put his face on this article and give the impression that he was the one responsible for the fuck-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment