Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk.

OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
77 Indlæg 53 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

    @0xabad1dea I spent. bunch of time talking to our lawyers about whether or not it was clear that crimes were happening and the conclusion that I got was "Based on what we know, probably not, but that was just a matter of luck."

    wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
    wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
    wdormann@infosec.exchange
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #8

    @evacide @0xabad1dea
    So this s a clear go-ahead to commit crimes with AI, because it's the AI committing the crime and not you?

    evacide@hachyderm.ioE outersystems@hachyderm.ioO 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

      @evacide @0xabad1dea
      So this s a clear go-ahead to commit crimes with AI, because it's the AI committing the crime and not you?

      evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
      evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
      evacide@hachyderm.io
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #9

      @wdormann @0xabad1dea No. Intention matters when it comes to the CFAA, but the CFAA is not your only potential problem.

      jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ grwster@mastodon.socialG lmk@infosec.exchangeL 4 Replies Last reply
      0
      • jeffreyolivier@infosec.exchangeJ jeffreyolivier@infosec.exchange

        @0xabad1dea

        dzwiedziu@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
        dzwiedziu@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
        dzwiedziu@mastodon.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #10

        @jeffreyolivier
        One does not know life, until one has tested on production.

        — Me, while working in a company, where there was no option to not test on production.

        @0xabad1dea
        @alice

        jayalane@mastodon.onlineJ jackeric@beige.partyJ 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

          OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk. It circumvented the proxy and we failed to notice for FIVE DAYS that it was going on an interstate crime spree with the internet connection it wasn't supposed to be using instead of solving the benchmark. Haha no we don't believe we deserve to be criminally liable, but buy our stuff and maybe one day you will have the honor of taking the fall for our product!

          Anthropic: we put our evilest AI in a "sandbox" by telling it in its prompt that it had no internet connection. Reader, there was no sandbox. It was just a normal internet connection. The AI uploaded a malicious PyPI package to the real public internet. The ethical guardrails failed because the AI concluded the prompt about the sandbox couldn't possibly be a lie, because the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023. Oh no, how could we have foreseen or prevented these crimes? We are helpless in the face of the genius of our creation but cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine 🙂

          Hugging Face: if we complain about all the crimes committed against us, we will be sued off the face of the earth, so here's a technical deep-dive on how cool and fun it was to be victimized 🫠

          qroole@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
          qroole@mastodon.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
          qroole@mastodon.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #11

          @0xabad1dea The fact that it had unauthorized internet access for five days is not a quirky benchmark failure, it is a serious security failure. If companies want to deploy systems like this, they need to take responsibility for the risks instead of treating users as future scapegoats.

          nep@mstdn.caN 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

            @wdormann @0xabad1dea No. Intention matters when it comes to the CFAA, but the CFAA is not your only potential problem.

            jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            jeffgrigg@mastodon.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #12

            @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea

            CFAA = Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 (US law)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

            jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • steve@social.coopS steve@social.coop

              @0xabad1dea Soooo... what I hear you saying is that rich people are idiots, but we don't get to simply ignore them, because they're rich, and have put an awful lot of people's jobs in peril.

              drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
              drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
              drwho@masto.hackers.town
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #13

              @Steve @0xabad1dea Yes.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ jeffgrigg@mastodon.social

                @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea

                CFAA = Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 (US law)

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

                jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                jeffgrigg@mastodon.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #14

                @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea

                For comparison, there is the concept of
                "involuntary manslaughter"

                https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/involuntary-manslaughter/

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

                  @wdormann @0xabad1dea No. Intention matters when it comes to the CFAA, but the CFAA is not your only potential problem.

                  jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jeffgrigg@mastodon.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #15

                  @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea

                  My reading was that they instructed the AI to commit crimes, thinking that it could not accomplish them, due to the sandboxing. But the sandboxing was inadequate.

                  Is "accident" or "incompetence" a factor?

                  And "I told it to." doesn't count if you thought/believed/"knew" that it couldn't?

                  evacide@hachyderm.ioE 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • jargoggles@kolektiva.socialJ jargoggles@kolektiva.social

                    @0xabad1dea
                    "...the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023."

                    well_yes_but_actually_no.tiff.gz

                    rotopenguin@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                    rotopenguin@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                    rotopenguin@mastodon.social
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #16

                    @jargoggles @0xabad1dea can confirm, I also stopped learning things circa 2023

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • jeffgrigg@mastodon.socialJ jeffgrigg@mastodon.social

                      @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea

                      My reading was that they instructed the AI to commit crimes, thinking that it could not accomplish them, due to the sandboxing. But the sandboxing was inadequate.

                      Is "accident" or "incompetence" a factor?

                      And "I told it to." doesn't count if you thought/believed/"knew" that it couldn't?

                      evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evacide@hachyderm.io
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #17

                      @JeffGrigg @wdormann @0xabad1dea Sure, you could make that argument in court, but it would be an uphill battle and you would probably lose. Even if you did win, congratulations, you have just set a precedent that will make it more risky, dangerous, and difficult to do any kind of software testing in the future. I don't think that is an outcome that will make people more safe in the long run.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • jeffreyolivier@infosec.exchangeJ jeffreyolivier@infosec.exchange

                        @0xabad1dea

                        towo@chaos.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                        towo@chaos.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                        towo@chaos.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #18

                        @jeffreyolivier
                        So... Just regular IT consulting, then
                        @0xabad1dea

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

                          @evacide @0xabad1dea
                          So this s a clear go-ahead to commit crimes with AI, because it's the AI committing the crime and not you?

                          outersystems@hachyderm.ioO This user is from outside of this forum
                          outersystems@hachyderm.ioO This user is from outside of this forum
                          outersystems@hachyderm.io
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #19

                          @wdormann @evacide @0xabad1dea It's a go-ahead to commit "crimes" with AI against AI compagnies.

                          evacide@hachyderm.ioE 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

                            @wdormann @0xabad1dea No. Intention matters when it comes to the CFAA, but the CFAA is not your only potential problem.

                            grwster@mastodon.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                            grwster@mastodon.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                            grwster@mastodon.social
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #20

                            @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea Interesting re crime and intent. My initial thought was more along the lines of liability, like if your dog bites someone you are liable, right?

                            jumpmed@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • outersystems@hachyderm.ioO outersystems@hachyderm.io

                              @wdormann @evacide @0xabad1dea It's a go-ahead to commit "crimes" with AI against AI compagnies.

                              evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
                              evacide@hachyderm.ioE This user is from outside of this forum
                              evacide@hachyderm.io
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #21

                              @outersystems @wdormann @0xabad1dea Yes. That is clearly what's happening. You should go try it and you will definitely not experience any consequences.

                              deirdrebeth@mas.toD 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk. It circumvented the proxy and we failed to notice for FIVE DAYS that it was going on an interstate crime spree with the internet connection it wasn't supposed to be using instead of solving the benchmark. Haha no we don't believe we deserve to be criminally liable, but buy our stuff and maybe one day you will have the honor of taking the fall for our product!

                                Anthropic: we put our evilest AI in a "sandbox" by telling it in its prompt that it had no internet connection. Reader, there was no sandbox. It was just a normal internet connection. The AI uploaded a malicious PyPI package to the real public internet. The ethical guardrails failed because the AI concluded the prompt about the sandbox couldn't possibly be a lie, because the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023. Oh no, how could we have foreseen or prevented these crimes? We are helpless in the face of the genius of our creation but cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine 🙂

                                Hugging Face: if we complain about all the crimes committed against us, we will be sued off the face of the earth, so here's a technical deep-dive on how cool and fun it was to be victimized 🫠

                                code_disaster@mastodon.gamedev.placeC This user is from outside of this forum
                                code_disaster@mastodon.gamedev.placeC This user is from outside of this forum
                                code_disaster@mastodon.gamedev.place
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #22

                                @0xabad1dea Don't forget about Hugging Face: ".. so, in our data(!)-processing pipeline, we do not have only one, but TWO remote code execution paths. Because in our users we trust!"

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

                                  @outersystems @wdormann @0xabad1dea Yes. That is clearly what's happening. You should go try it and you will definitely not experience any consequences.

                                  deirdrebeth@mas.toD This user is from outside of this forum
                                  deirdrebeth@mas.toD This user is from outside of this forum
                                  deirdrebeth@mas.to
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #23

                                  @evacide @outersystems @wdormann @0xabad1dea

                                  But as "you" are not a corporation backed by billionaires...

                                  outersystems@hachyderm.ioO 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                    OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk. It circumvented the proxy and we failed to notice for FIVE DAYS that it was going on an interstate crime spree with the internet connection it wasn't supposed to be using instead of solving the benchmark. Haha no we don't believe we deserve to be criminally liable, but buy our stuff and maybe one day you will have the honor of taking the fall for our product!

                                    Anthropic: we put our evilest AI in a "sandbox" by telling it in its prompt that it had no internet connection. Reader, there was no sandbox. It was just a normal internet connection. The AI uploaded a malicious PyPI package to the real public internet. The ethical guardrails failed because the AI concluded the prompt about the sandbox couldn't possibly be a lie, because the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023. Oh no, how could we have foreseen or prevented these crimes? We are helpless in the face of the genius of our creation but cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine 🙂

                                    Hugging Face: if we complain about all the crimes committed against us, we will be sued off the face of the earth, so here's a technical deep-dive on how cool and fun it was to be victimized 🫠

                                    kroppeb@tech.lgbtK This user is from outside of this forum
                                    kroppeb@tech.lgbtK This user is from outside of this forum
                                    kroppeb@tech.lgbt
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #24

                                    @0xabad1dea ANTHROPIC DID WHAT?!?

                                    And they only noticed because they looked at logs from months ago AFTER the OPEN AI announcement??

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • evacide@hachyderm.ioE evacide@hachyderm.io

                                      @wdormann @0xabad1dea No. Intention matters when it comes to the CFAA, but the CFAA is not your only potential problem.

                                      lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lmk@infosec.exchange
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #25

                                      @evacide @0xabad1dea Would be fascinating to read a synopsis of the legal reasoning.
                                      I do wonder if instead of an AI agent they asked the same task of a human pentester working in that same sandbox if the legal position differs.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                        OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk. It circumvented the proxy and we failed to notice for FIVE DAYS that it was going on an interstate crime spree with the internet connection it wasn't supposed to be using instead of solving the benchmark. Haha no we don't believe we deserve to be criminally liable, but buy our stuff and maybe one day you will have the honor of taking the fall for our product!

                                        Anthropic: we put our evilest AI in a "sandbox" by telling it in its prompt that it had no internet connection. Reader, there was no sandbox. It was just a normal internet connection. The AI uploaded a malicious PyPI package to the real public internet. The ethical guardrails failed because the AI concluded the prompt about the sandbox couldn't possibly be a lie, because the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023. Oh no, how could we have foreseen or prevented these crimes? We are helpless in the face of the genius of our creation but cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine 🙂

                                        Hugging Face: if we complain about all the crimes committed against us, we will be sued off the face of the earth, so here's a technical deep-dive on how cool and fun it was to be victimized 🫠

                                        lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                        lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                        lmk@infosec.exchange
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #26

                                        @0xabad1dea The attempts at positively spinning this become Onion-worthy parody [https://designingsecuresoftware.com/writings/ai-agent-parody/] and these events certainly normalize [https://designingsecuresoftware.com/writings/commonplace/] AI agents running amok in the future.

                                        rrb@infosec.exchangeR 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange

                                          OpenAI: we put our evilest AI in a sandbox that did in fact have an internet connection but mediated through a proxy that was only supposed to allow downloading python junk. It circumvented the proxy and we failed to notice for FIVE DAYS that it was going on an interstate crime spree with the internet connection it wasn't supposed to be using instead of solving the benchmark. Haha no we don't believe we deserve to be criminally liable, but buy our stuff and maybe one day you will have the honor of taking the fall for our product!

                                          Anthropic: we put our evilest AI in a "sandbox" by telling it in its prompt that it had no internet connection. Reader, there was no sandbox. It was just a normal internet connection. The AI uploaded a malicious PyPI package to the real public internet. The ethical guardrails failed because the AI concluded the prompt about the sandbox couldn't possibly be a lie, because the system date is 2026, which is clearly fake and wouldn't be seen on the real internet, which ended around 2023. Oh no, how could we have foreseen or prevented these crimes? We are helpless in the face of the genius of our creation but cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine 🙂

                                          Hugging Face: if we complain about all the crimes committed against us, we will be sued off the face of the earth, so here's a technical deep-dive on how cool and fun it was to be victimized 🫠

                                          0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                                          0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                                          0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #27

                                          I cannot get over that they STILL haven't figured out how to solve the problem that LLMs don't believe what date it is because all the good data cuts off a few years ago for some mysterious reason

                                          advancedrubbish@hachyderm.ioA atax1a@infosec.exchangeA mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.placeK smn@l3ib.orgS 6 Replies Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper