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

    @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
                                  • 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 🫠

                                    rejzor@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rejzor@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rejzor@mastodon.social
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #28

                                    @0xabad1dea And I got contacted by national security institute because I was testing malware in sandbox and my ISP apparently detected "botnet running on my system". Few years later talking with AV-Comparatives guys, they had to make special agreement and exemption with ISP to be allowed to run live sandboxed malware on their networks. But these Ai companies can just do worse shit and no one does anything. WTF?!

                                    J 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 🫠

                                      mcwabbit@tenforward.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      mcwabbit@tenforward.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      mcwabbit@tenforward.social
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #29

                                      @0xabad1dea So less cool than the Terminator Skynet story. I am disappointed.

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

                                        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 This user is from outside of this forum
                                        advancedrubbish@hachyderm.ioA This user is from outside of this forum
                                        advancedrubbish@hachyderm.io
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #30

                                        @0xabad1dea to be fair to LLMs in this ONE case, I also do not believe what date it is

                                        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 🫠

                                          nullpo@masto.hackers.townN This user is from outside of this forum
                                          nullpo@masto.hackers.townN This user is from outside of this forum
                                          nullpo@masto.hackers.town
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #31

                                          @0xabad1dea the funniest outcome i've had so far from this is a client has done a full stop on AI tooling usage because after reading the openai stuff they're worried about it doing bad things without anyone noticing

                                          1 Reply 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