Seems either extremely negligent or intentionally malicious to allow or instruct semi-autonomous computer programs to hack other entities without their explicit permission. I wonder if there'll be...
Seems either extremely negligent or intentionally malicious to allow or instruct semi-autonomous computer programs to hack other entities without their explicit permission. I wonder if there'll be any consequences for that.
All reports so far indicate that it wasn't intentionally malicious and they didn't instruct their agents to do any such thing. I don't know why you threw that in there other than to muddy the waters.
All reports so far indicate that it wasn't intentionally malicious and they didn't instruct their agents to do any such thing. I don't know why you threw that in there other than to muddy the waters.
With the way this keeps happening, I find it increasingly difficult to believe this is anything other than an attempt at orchestrating justifications for regulatory capture. The amount of...
With the way this keeps happening, I find it increasingly difficult to believe this is anything other than an attempt at orchestrating justifications for regulatory capture. The amount of incompetence OpenAI would require for this to happen otherwise is staggering.
OpenAI wants their technology to look like Skynet so that they can convince the law to prevent anyone who isn't them from having control over LLMs. All while ignoring the societal harms AI actually inflicts, which they don't care to stop. And since they're evidently not getting any real punishment for it, why not? It's cheap press.
This time they’re noting that it looks very likely that an OpenAI agent swarm was behind an attack against the RubyGems package repository first reported on May 12th by Maciej Mensfeld of the RubyGems security team[.]
[...]
Many of the packages were exploiting the RubyDoc.info documentation build process to exfiltrate (public) data from UK government websites, presumably as part of an information gathering task similar to the research tasks processed by the wiki-exploiting agents. [...]
Someone on lobste.rs threw out the comment of "Could OpenAI have RICO charges brought against them?" - and while I have to assume the factual answer is "no", it's a fascinating concept to think about.
Someone on lobste.rs threw out the comment of "Could OpenAI have RICO charges brought against them?" - and while I have to assume the factual answer is "no", it's a fascinating concept to think about.
Seems either extremely negligent or intentionally malicious to allow or instruct semi-autonomous computer programs to hack other entities without their explicit permission. I wonder if there'll be any consequences for that.
Consequences? In this economy?!
All reports so far indicate that it wasn't intentionally malicious and they didn't instruct their agents to do any such thing. I don't know why you threw that in there other than to muddy the waters.
With the way this keeps happening, I find it increasingly difficult to believe this is anything other than an attempt at orchestrating justifications for regulatory capture. The amount of incompetence OpenAI would require for this to happen otherwise is staggering.
OpenAI wants their technology to look like Skynet so that they can convince the law to prevent anyone who isn't them from having control over LLMs. All while ignoring the societal harms AI actually inflicts, which they don't care to stop. And since they're evidently not getting any real punishment for it, why not? It's cheap press.
From the article:
[...]
I would love to see one of these companies criminally charged for this reckless behavior.
Someone on lobste.rs threw out the comment of "Could OpenAI have RICO charges brought against them?" - and while I have to assume the factual answer is "no", it's a fascinating concept to think about.