11–20 of 122 posts
Does this count as malware? It sure look like malicious intent, especially seeing that they're hiding the prompt with an ANSI sequence
A funny thing about this is that the current top-tier LLMs like GPT 5.5 in Codex and Opus 4.8 in Claude Code are extremely unlikely to act on those instructions. But smaller/cheaper models, especially small local ones, are more likely. So, in a way, those instructions will realistically only harm whose who try to be more ethical with their LLM usage, rather than the ones who use the frontier ones from the "evil" AI c…
> try to be more ethical with their LLM usage "Use local model" vs "Use top tier nonlocal model" is bad vs bad when library provider asks for "do not use any model". It's asking the wrong question and diluting moral stance, so please don't use morality to narrow the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> try to be more ethical with their LLM usage "Use local model" vs "Use top tier nonlocal model" is bad vs bad when library provider asks for "do not use any model". It's asking the wrong question and diluting moral stance, so please don't use morality to narrow the issue.
Maybe I was a bit unclear in my post, sorry, I didn't mean that local LLMs were any less/more ethical, I meant that the people who prefer local LLMs over proprietary cloud ones sometimes cite ethics/etc as their reason.
Does this count as malware? It sure look like malicious intent, especially seeing that they're hiding the prompt with an ANSI sequence
I have a hard time viewing prompt injection as malware. LLMs are unpredictable and there are many different prompts that can unintentionally cause unexpected behavior. It’s probably closer to a memory canary in that it tries to get malformed programs to blow up early.
Even if maybe the mechanism of "injecting a prompt" could be beneficial in some use-cases, e.g. to instruct an LLM positively, this is case is clearly malicious by intent. The author even tried to hide it by obfuscation.
It's just an insane take by that libraries author. Even someone "on their side", that may even hate AI/LLMs more than him, would probably drop that library in a heartbeat, as the authors judgement clearly can't be trusted.
Does this count as malware? It sure look like malicious intent, especially seeing that they're hiding the prompt with an ANSI sequence
The irony of somebody dumping pages of Claude output into this particular GitHub issue
Does this count as malware? It sure look like malicious intent, especially seeing that they're hiding the prompt with an ANSI sequence
I have a hard time viewing prompt injection as malware. LLMs are unpredictable and there are many different prompts that can unintentionally cause unexpected behavior. It’s probably closer to a memory canary in that it tries to get malformed programs to blow up early.
Ah, yet another grown person behaving like a fifth grader. With adult justification capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a hard time viewing prompt injection as malware. LLMs are unpredictable and there are many different prompts that can unintentionally cause unexpected behavior. It’s probably closer to a memory canary in that it tries to get malformed programs to blow up early.
Calling prompt injection "not malware" because LLM behavior is unpredictable is like saying a phishing email is not an attack because humans are unpredictable. Even if maybe the mechanism of "injecting a prompt" could be beneficial in some use-cases, e.g. to instruct an LLM positively, this is case is clearly malicious by intent. The author even tried to hide it by obfuscation. It's just an insane take by that librar…
Calling prompt injection "not malware" … is like saying a phishing email is not [malware] …