this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
310 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

88146 readers
3447 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
 

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 controversial new old
[–] crashfrog@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] crashfrog@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

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

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (11 children)

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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

"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.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago

This is Lemmy, heavily biased against LLMs, any bullshit flies. This person even gets upvotes despite spewing superficial nonsense. The same way Trump screeching about some bullshit gets cheered on by his "followers". LLMs have real issues we can talk about (tho always spamming them whenever AI is mentioned is also not a good idea). With things like Qwen 3.8 27B we have local, super useful/powerful LLMs running on oldish consumer hardware!

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Machines can not and will not create. They are lifeless silicon.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not saying LLMs are capable of human level intelligence. But what do you think makes human brains special? They're just a confused wet sack of meat filled with neurons. I see no reason why it wouldn't theoretically be possible to construct an artificial brain.

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago

They aren't special, which is exactly why I don't think we should be making things that think for us when we don't even know how we operate.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›