121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we're all paying for LLM access for shits and giggles, and not because we're getting actual value from it.
I don't care why you pay for LLM access, it's still spamming my online forums and codebases.
I have been thinking about this a lot. I just bought a rather expensive rig for local inference for a home agent (powered by four RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Qs). As I contemplate handing it more and more of the keys to my life, I grow increasingly concerned about what is, to me, the primary risk of this. Not data destruction (automated backups are trivial), but data exfiltration. Specifically, via prompt injection. M…
>rig for local inference for a home agent (powered by four RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Qs) can you elaborate at all on what sort of rig you went with, beyond the big $$ GPUs?
The framing they use is hilarious and their little graphic is perfect. The risk of harm doesn't go down, but the reward goes up, so the harm just becomes the cost of doing business, justified by the reward. So as the reward gets higher and higher, the amount of harm they're willing to justify goes up. Feels like society in a nutshell.
Everything you do a risk/reward equation, you just don't usually see it drawn out quite so starkly. Getting out of bed in the morning carries a risk that you'll trip and crack your head on the floor. Crossing a road carries a risk of being hit by a bus. Eating food carries a risk of choking on it. The same is true in computer security. The only truly secure computer is one you don't turn on, and even that carries som…
I guess it’s the fact that Anthropic usually frame this around morality and risk to society that makes it different. Instead of “risk/harm to me vs reward to me,” their framing reads as “risk/harm to us vs reward to me” or “immorality vs reward to me.” That’s what makes it feel like a great metaphor.
The standard cost benefit analysis we all do justifies increasing the harm to others if the opportunity to benefit ourselves goes up.
I'm intensely skeptical about anything Anthropic says, because they are so incented to make their products seem dangerous (i.e., "capable", "science fiction", "ahead of everyone") ahead of their IPO. And they've done it before. Remember the whole "when threatened, the model would use an engineer's email to blackmail him about his affair" nonsense? That was just fan fiction. They simply created a scenario with some fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's Shrek logic. "Some of you are going to die, and that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
No, it's the actual reasonable approach that sane people have to security. In the real world, security is always about costs and benefits, because you can always make something more secure than it is by spending more money, but it also doesn't make sense to spend more than you're getting from it. Normally, you secure things up to minimize (${cost of security measures} + ${expected damage from attacks that materialize…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care why you pay for LLM access, it's still spamming my online forums and codebases.
LLMs don't spam on their own. Take it up with people who wield them.
For my own use of LLMs, I do try to avoid anything which I know has a risk the artefacts they produce may end up DoSing or spamming, and I've avoided the OpenClaw-type pattern for a broader range of reasons of which this is simply one tiny part, but I'm not absolutely confident I could avoid this even in the code coming out of the free tier of the web chat interfaces except by checking every single line of output every single time.