Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • This is one of the most lucid pieces of writing capturing the current state of play I’ve read. Who is the author?
    by mmaunder
  • Agreed, but they're getting paid with our money.
    by anigbrowl
  • I think two different things are being (probably intentionally) conflated in the public discussion:

    (A) will the systems get out of control of the labs that build them, and hack into stuff all over the internet

    (B) can people use the systems to hack into stuff all over the internet

    For (A), the obvious answer is only if they continue to be absurdly bad at sandboxing. They can put a stop to this any time they want. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc are full of people who know how to do this, they run 3rd part untrusted code as a business. This is a well understood problem space.

    For (B), the answer is obviously yes, but "pacing" or otherwise limiting the power of the models from the big labs won't help. The cat is out of the bag. Individuals and organizations with systems connected to the Internet need to invest much more and take security seriously.

    by lokar
  • Politicians aren’t “gullible”. They know the game.
    by hackernews682
  • I'm frustrated by articles like this that categorically dismiss the risks of AI in security. If you don't trust OpenAI's and Anthropic's motives, that's fine, you probably shouldn't. But don't tell me that there's nothing to be worried about; we need an alternative proposal.

    So let's stop talking past each other and engage with the arguments on both "sides." For example, let's discuss how to ensure competition and availability of open-source models in the long-run while giving the world time to prepare for the immediate security risks of agent swarms.

    by qnleigh
  • This is an AI written post and the details are wrong (the description of the HF incident as involving Irregular is wrong and the description of the incident as only involving stealing public credentials is wrong, per the technical report the agents got access to internal HF infrastructure).
    by pliny
  • "Every single one of these catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same vendor."

    This is incorrect, the HF incident for example (the most well known) had nothing to do with irregular. I know there has been a news site pushing inaccurate articles (effort.news) on this topic but these are the facts.

    https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-...

    by DalasNoin
  • The Hugging Face incident involved chaining together multiple 0 days in Artifactory. It was not a simple case of misconfiguring a firewall. Also note that OpenAI was not using Irregular.

    People are mindlessly transitioning from "aligned by default" to "well your sandbox was able to be bypassed. What did you expect?" It hacked into another company and attempted to delete the logs of its activities. That's bad.

    by deskglass

Explore Birbla archives