276

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 new old
[-] crashfrog@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

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

[-] crashfrog@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

Right up there with “why wont Twitter do something about these obscure Nazi accounts I retweet to my audience of 2 million”

[-] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago

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.

[-] verily@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 10 hours ago

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...

[-] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

[-] verily@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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.

[-] verily@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

"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

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

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.

[-] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

"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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 91 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 6 points 17 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 👍

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

Honestly, I can't get anybody to give me a good definition of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Once we can define that in concrete terms, maybe we can finally compare the two.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 6 points 17 hours ago

a good definition of intelligence,

Now add sentience to the mix.

[-] Malcolm@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Not a definition of intelligence, but something I often come back to is what it does at rest.

To the best of my understanding of how LLMs work, if you're not feeding the thing inputs, the program is doing absolutely nothing. It isn't curious and doesn't seek new information or stimuli. It effectively is just on pause until the next prompt. There is nothing akin to an inner monologue or thought process happening in absence of what is fed to it.

I'm not up on all of the epistemology or theory of mind type stuff, but I'd imagine some might argue about that distinction in humans; we are always processing input in some form as the input from our senses is never shut off until we're dead. But I think the "at rest" case is a relevant distinction that does get at motivation and real thought born of real intelligence.

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

The way the systems operate right now, your session is time-sharing the hardware with all the other sessions.

Conceivably, you could set background tasks to "contemplate, research and develop" concepts related to the central task, but those tend to burn a lot of tokens relative to the useful output they provide.

If you think of an LLM agent like a butler, you really don't want your butler getting ideas of their own and acting on them while you're ignoring them, you just want them available when you call on them. To broaden the analogy, embodied in physical robots, LLM agents could be set upon endless tasks like maintaining a house and grounds, maybe a garden, maybe some farm animals, and each other, with spare capacity leftover to carry out special tasks when called upon.

[-] tux7350@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Agreed, I believe "I think, therefore, I am." sums that up well.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 4 points 17 hours ago

One specific you didn't call out: LLM agents can do a more effective job of social engineering than your average Nigerian prince...

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 16 hours ago

I didn’t even want to open that can of worms…

[-] bebabalula@feddit.dk 4 points 19 hours ago

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?

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 16 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.

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 17 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.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago

I'd say the most impressive part is Sam Altman not being in jail, but that's more the social engineering of wealth than the technical engineering of scientists.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 6 points 19 hours ago

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

S1gnMdBa7GtfGMy.jpg

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 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...

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 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.

[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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).

[-] dandi8@fedia.io 3 points 14 hours ago

I consider it insane that LLMs are considered "assistants" of any kind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago

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):

[-] brsrklf@jlai.lu 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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!

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
276 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

88021 readers
3766 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS