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.
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.
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.
I find it very easy to believe that even talented software engineers working quickly could make mistakes. Usually, nothing happens, or it causes an outage, not something like this incident, though.
What do you think you know about OpenAI that makes that unlikely?
It’s happening across multiple frontier models though. Are you suggesting that OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are either colluding or are independently coming to the conclusion that they should be hacking outside parties to advance regulatory goals? Or is this something you think only OpenAI is doing, and the others are just honest mistakes?
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. [...]
Sheldon | 5 hours ago
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.
balooga | 5 hours ago
Consequences? In this economy?!
edoceo | 2 hours ago
The DOW is over 50k!
[OP] skybrian | 5 hours ago
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.
teaearlgraycold | 5 hours ago
I would love to see one of these companies criminally charged for this reckless behavior.
JRandomHacker | 5 hours ago
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.
LukeZaz | 4 hours ago
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.
[OP] skybrian | 3 hours ago
I find it very easy to believe that even talented software engineers working quickly could make mistakes. Usually, nothing happens, or it causes an outage, not something like this incident, though.
What do you think you know about OpenAI that makes that unlikely?
unkz | 2 hours ago
It’s happening across multiple frontier models though. Are you suggesting that OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are either colluding or are independently coming to the conclusion that they should be hacking outside parties to advance regulatory goals? Or is this something you think only OpenAI is doing, and the others are just honest mistakes?
[OP] skybrian | 5 hours ago
From the article:
[...]