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.
  • rejzor@mastodon.socialR rejzor@mastodon.social

    @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 This user is from outside of this forum
    J This user is from outside of this forum
    jameswidman@mastodon.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #34

    @rejzor @0xabad1dea well, their leaders _did_ contribute millions of dollars to trump's campaign, so

    guillotine_jones@beige.partyG 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • rotopenguin@mastodon.socialR rotopenguin@mastodon.social

      @atax1a nah, I'll just have a regex* swap 2026 and 2023 on data moving in and out of the LLM.

      *the regex is actually another LLM

      atax1a@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
      atax1a@infosec.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
      atax1a@infosec.exchange
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #35

      @rotopenguin [subtitle: this is what LLM users actually believe]

      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

        mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
        mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
        mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #36

        @0xabad1dea I think that that may very well be unfixable

        lanodan@queer.hacktivis.meL 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

          kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.placeK This user is from outside of this forum
          kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.placeK This user is from outside of this forum
          kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.place
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #37

          @0xabad1dea weird it's like LLMs don't actually handle facts or knowledge but just contextualless strings of characters.

          To be clear the sarcasm is only aimed at LLM boosters not you.

          mathew@universeodon.comM 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org

            @0xabad1dea I think that that may very well be unfixable

            lanodan@queer.hacktivis.meL This user is from outside of this forum
            lanodan@queer.hacktivis.meL This user is from outside of this forum
            lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #38
            @mirabilos @0xabad1dea Well… at least without effectively using them as parsers rather than as text generators.
            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • deirdrebeth@mas.toD deirdrebeth@mas.to

              @evacide @outersystems @wdormann @0xabad1dea

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

              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
              #39

              @deirdrebeth @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea « Selon que vous serez puissant ou misérable / Les jugements de cour vous rendront blanc ou noir ».

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

              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 🫠

                foolishowl@social.coopF This user is from outside of this forum
                foolishowl@social.coopF This user is from outside of this forum
                foolishowl@social.coop
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #40

                @0xabad1dea They're promoting total incompetence as if it's a selling point.

                steve@social.coopS 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • grwster@mastodon.socialG grwster@mastodon.social

                  @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 This user is from outside of this forum
                  jumpmed@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jumpmed@mastodon.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #41

                  @grwster @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea That's what I would think. Like you keeping a vicious Doberman in the front yard with only a 3ft fence. An outside observer would (correctly) say that it's foreseeable that it could escape and maul someone. In that scenario you could be held criminally liable if it jumped the fence and mauled someone because most places have laws about dogs and fences. You'd also have civil liability to cover damages.

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

                    @grwster @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea That's what I would think. Like you keeping a vicious Doberman in the front yard with only a 3ft fence. An outside observer would (correctly) say that it's foreseeable that it could escape and maul someone. In that scenario you could be held criminally liable if it jumped the fence and mauled someone because most places have laws about dogs and fences. You'd also have civil liability to cover damages.

                    jumpmed@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jumpmed@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jumpmed@mastodon.social
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #42

                    @grwster @evacide @wdormann @0xabad1dea The difference is that we really don't have any laws on criminal liability for what software does. Up until the llm era, software was fairly predictable. An outside observer could tell if a package was designed to do something malicious. Now we need laws that essentially establish a "you should have known better" criminal liability for software.

                    supermoosie@mastodon.auS 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

                      smn@l3ib.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                      smn@l3ib.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                      smn@l3ib.org
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #43

                      @0xabad1dea

                      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 🫠

                        dasmatus@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                        dasmatus@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                        dasmatus@mastodon.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #44

                        @0xabad1dea Also HuggingFace had to use a open weight model to investigate the breach since the guardrails kicked in.

                        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

                          G This user is from outside of this forum
                          G This user is from outside of this forum
                          ggreer@mastodon.world
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #45

                          @0xabad1dea It gets old too when Gemini Code Assist complains that we’re requiring minimum versions of Go that don’t exist, because of course its training data doesn’t have ones just released.

                          suetanvil@freeradical.zoneS 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • J jameswidman@mastodon.social

                            @rejzor @0xabad1dea well, their leaders _did_ contribute millions of dollars to trump's campaign, so

                            guillotine_jones@beige.partyG This user is from outside of this forum
                            guillotine_jones@beige.partyG This user is from outside of this forum
                            guillotine_jones@beige.party
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #46

                            @JamesWidman @rejzor @0xabad1dea

                            Their leaders did contribute millions to Trump's campaign, so, get out of jail free card.

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

                              @0xabad1dea

                              boudah@hostux.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                              boudah@hostux.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                              boudah@hostux.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #47

                              @jeffreyolivier @0xabad1dea testing?

                              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 🫠

                                pavel@social.kernel.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
                                pavel@social.kernel.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
                                pavel@social.kernel.org
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #48
                                @0xabad1dea No hiding behind "AI". AI is not criminally liable, people are. OpenAI and Anthropic hacked other people's computers, there should be consequences for that.
                                rrb@infosec.exchangeR 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • guillotine_jones@beige.partyG guillotine_jones@beige.party

                                  @JamesWidman @rejzor @0xabad1dea

                                  Their leaders did contribute millions to Trump's campaign, so, get out of jail free card.

                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  J This user is from outside of this forum
                                  jameswidman@mastodon.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #49

                                  @Guillotine_Jones unfortunately, that is exactly what the system does, yes

                                  guillotine_jones@beige.partyG 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 🫠

                                    markzero@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    markzero@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    markzero@c.im
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #50

                                    @0xabad1dea I felt bad for Hugging Face until I realized they probably didn't sue because they are partly owned by Nvidia, who also owns a huge stake in Open AI.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J jameswidman@mastodon.social

                                      @Guillotine_Jones unfortunately, that is exactly what the system does, yes

                                      guillotine_jones@beige.partyG This user is from outside of this forum
                                      guillotine_jones@beige.partyG This user is from outside of this forum
                                      guillotine_jones@beige.party
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #51

                                      @JamesWidman
                                      Thank YOU, James.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • 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."

                                        craig_groeschel@zeroes.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        craig_groeschel@zeroes.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        craig_groeschel@zeroes.ca
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #52

                                        @evacide @0xabad1dea
                                        I can't help but imagine Anthropic spent a lot of time talking to their lawyers asking questions like, "Are we OK? How do we spin this?"

                                        Everyone, say hello to my friend the crime/fraud exception.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • foolishowl@social.coopF foolishowl@social.coop

                                          @0xabad1dea They're promoting total incompetence as if it's a selling point.

                                          steve@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          steve@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          steve@social.coop
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #53

                                          @foolishowl @0xabad1dea Well, it's working for Trump and a lot of people around him, so it's not like there isn't precedent.

                                          rrb@infosec.exchangeR 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