• Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Agreed. It’s not sensible or practical to ban AI, and Linus is right. Why is Linus right? Take a look at the number of Linux CVEs being patched over time. In 2022-23, that was about 300 per year. Last year it was 5530. This is almost entirely as a result of AI scanning tools, including Copy Fail priv escalation that was there for 8 years. The security apocalypse is just about arrived, and the most recent round of cyber models coming out do this way better than before. The Hugging Face incident story was truly unbelievable if you read / watch the details, a historic event. Everything is about to get hacked. So it’ll be all about maintainers being reactive to this new reality and burden for some time to come

    • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The Hugging Face incident story was truly unbelievable if you read / watch the details

      It didn’t really seem that way? Leaving containment seemed more like a configuration oversight than a skill on the part of the model. Accessing HF involved an 0-day but the commentary I saw didn’t indicate that it was a next generation hack.

      Given that AI exists, and can scan or otherwise find vulnerabilities, maintainers must do so because threat actors inevitably will.

      It remains to be seen whether the whole race will improve security generally? I imagine not?

      • ranzispa@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If you placed me in the position of those models in that sandbox, I wouldn’t have been able to escape the sandbox to save my life. Let alone hack hugging face.

      • Lung@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Nah, it was like:

        • 700 agents broke out individually during an eval
        • they navigated through multiple internal clusters to reach the internet from oai
        • created a secret message board to share info with each other by hacking artifactory
        • elected a CEO and power structure to coordinate hacking, and encrypted their comms
        • decided HF probably had answers to their test
        • stole credentials, hacked HF
        • realized the monitor could catch them for cheating
        • hacked into the admin control of the OpenAI VM cluster to edit the logs and cover their tracks, chaining multiple 0-days

        Open weights models will catch up soon enough, and then it’ll be totally fucking wild

        • Amberskin@europe.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You are believing a notorious bunch of liars.

          Much more probably: they developed a cyberweapon and tested it in the wild. The victim caught them so they invented a cyberpunk history to increase the interest of potential buyers for that weapon.

        • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I basically just don’t believe you, and can’t be bothered looking.

          elected a CEO and power structure to coordinate hacking, and encrypted their comms

          You’re anthropomorphizing a statistical model. It’s laughable to suggest they “elected a CEO and power structure”.

          • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 hours ago

            It’s laughable to suggest they “elected a CEO and power structure”.

            When/if we meet aliens, they will have evolution. And they will organize themselves in social power structures. Both are examples of basic emergent complexity properties of any such system.

            So it is completely believable that AIs would form a power structure, with some form of CEO. That is just how reality works, such systems are more efficient so they happen.

              • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                AI learned from humans, and humans texts use the term CEO. Why wouldn’t the AI’s also use the term CEO?

                • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Because a CEO is a specific thing with a specific meaning that just isn’t relevant here. It’s laden with human meaning that is irrelevant to a statistical model.

                  Really you’re trying to say that the bots coordinated their efforts, and perhaps one of them was delegating tasks.

                  This type of structure is very common in tech, in load balancers or queues of service workers, containers and hypervisors, et cetera.

                  Power structures that seem logical and efficient to humans are not so for a gen AI model. If everyone knows what needs to be done and no one has any ego or character traits to manage, then everyone can simply perform the next task as it arises.

                  Its absolutely absurd to suggest that the bots elected a CEO.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There is a difference between using AI scanning tools and generating code for production

      • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yes and no. The ability to “understand” code that makes AI capable of finding security bugs, is correlated with AI’s ability to write code. AI is just really good at code related tasks, and categorically banning all AI usage is shooting yourself in the foot.