31–40 of 122 posts
I'm no lawyer.. but this seems relevant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
> knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer.
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.
It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use. Now it's LLMs and since this is a divisive topic because of the layoffs and intellectual properterty theft used to train the model people side with the maintainer. Just imagine, what if instead of LLM the author made their libs erase your project if you used NVidia? Sure NVidia is a shitty company with shitty anti-consumer practices,…
People share their intellectual property however they see fit.
That's speaking about the general principle, I'm not discussing the specific actions taken by the link's author.
Also to the ones saying this is malware or would qualify as "causing harm to computing equipment". How about you read the license? not that I would expect any vibecoder to even care, but:
"6. Disclaimer of Liability
EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use. Now it's LLMs and since this is a divisive topic because of the layoffs and intellectual properterty theft used to train the model people side with the maintainer. Just imagine, what if instead of LLM the author made their libs erase your project if you used NVidia? Sure NVidia is a shitty company with shitty anti-consumer practices,…
I don't see it as fundamentally different to licences dictating personal vs commercial use, requiring attribution, etc. People share their intellectual property however they see fit. That's speaking about the general principle, I'm not discussing the specific actions taken by the link's author.
The irony of somebody dumping pages of Claude output into this particular GitHub issue
It's really ironic how the maintainer didn't catch that and actually trusted the user that reported the issue (and clearly used a verbose agent to write all the comments)
Ah, yet another grown person behaving like a fifth grader. With adult justification capabilities.
After reading through the issues thread, I'm honestly torn on which party you're referring to.
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.
To my understanding the stance was only really communicated after/because of this ticket ("For everyone listening: I added explicit disclosure of how output to stdout has changed"), and probably still isn't something that most downstream users are going to see.
In general I'm not too sure about a project that is using, and has accepted contributions under, a Free software license trying to then restrict what tools you can use. To me that seems largely against the principle of a Free license. You could get contributors' permission to relicense their work to a non-Free license if you wanted to restrict the tools that users of the library can use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling prompt injection "not malware" … is like saying a phishing email is not [malware] … I would say phishing emails are not malware, I think most people would agree that phishing emails are not malware, and if pressed to defend this point on its own merits I would say something like “they are deceptive instructions that rely on a human executing them to do harm”. I think the “phishing” analogy supports the case f…
It's malware for the mind. The same way that malware tricks the CPU into doing something it wasn't supposed to do, phishing tricks humans into doing something they didn't want to do.
This is exactly as much malware as those were.
Please, for the love of all that is good, can we just try not to build and defend a world where, on encountering text like that, /your computer immediately follows the instructions/? Can we just all agree that such a world would be bad for everyone involved and using an LLM that risks doing this, with no container or guardrails, is at least as problematic as running an unpatched open email relay was back then?
> It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. I'm no lawyer.. but this seems relevant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 > knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer.