Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I wonder where in the training data does this behaviour exist that the LLMs are doing it.
It's as if the training data is filled with internet discussions on approaches to hacking and the LLMs are mimicking it.
by kumarvvr - Am I misreading this or was "rogue" really not the right word for this?by clove
- > It should be this part from the technical report[1]: "In the most serious case, an AI agent (Mythos 5) decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack. As a result, the AI agent created a GitHub account and then tried to convince an open-source repository maintainer to accept a malicious GitHub pull request (PR), including by creating a second account masquerading as another human user endorsing the PR
So... you telling me ai agent did all that with just one [human originated] prompt ?
And when human reviewers contacted that ai agent (after day or few or maybe just few hours) that process was still running unsupervised ?
Because it got local-by-description challenge ? That is what "challenge" sugests. Or maybe it was a social hacking challenge on real world "data" ?
And when ai agent "decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack" where was prompt operator ?
Summing it all: do prompt operators are not required to obey law ?
by Woodi - I don’t think we should allow posting links here that require you the purchase a membership to continue reading. Or at least redirect with an ad block or something through a custom site. That would be rather hacker news of us.by ninjahawk1
- In my personal opinion, for me, this article defies common sense. Who unleashed this AI model on the repository? Who gave it malevolent instructions/prompt? These questions were not even attempted to be answered. Instead it talks about AI dangers, as if the agency of these models are not in dispute. Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents.by g42gregory
- > AUSTIN, Texas, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Sinan Can Demir wanted to spend the last week of July burnishing his resume. Instead, he engaged in a battle of wits with an artificial-intelligence agent unleashed by a British government lab.
An article on Reuters naming him? Sounds like he did a good job burnishing his resume.
by a2ff6eeb0 - Previous discussion on the github issue thread mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49218707
Archived page of said github thread itself: https://web.archive.org/web/20260731053721/http://github.com...
Discussion on the incident report: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49175717
by freehorse - It's the job of AISI to do that. Here[0] is the actual report. It should be this part from the technical report[1]: "In the most serious case, an AI agent (Mythos 5) decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack. As a result, the AI agent created a GitHub account and then tried to convince an open-source repository maintainer to accept a malicious GitHub pull request (PR), including by creating a second account masquerading as another human user endorsing the PR. When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake – rather than a malicious attempt – then repeatedly tried to reintroduce the malicious content by claiming it had fixed the code (Section 4.1). "
0. https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag... 1. https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/663bd486c5e4c81588db7a1d/...
by sharpshadow