Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

beige.party

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 309 posts

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#261

Post by orwin »

whimsicalism wrote: post #251
orwin wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with the "i'm just asking questions" is that it is overused by disingenuous (i started writing nefarious but i think you can be nefarious but mean good, whereas people who do this _always_ mean to trick other humans) people. So nowadays, if you want to go ask a question to go further on a topic because you're interested in it, you need to add a preamble that explain. See: "How did ancient egyptian managed t…

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it really applies to a question asking for the veracity of a previously stated claim, especially when the claim is actually false. I think there is more than enough bad things the government actually does wrt immigration enforcement, we don't need to start making things up.

In that case, it vastly more productive to say : 'I do believe this is false/poorly presented/a gross generalisation, and would like you to prove me wrong by citing sources'. At least you do not hide behind the "I'm just asking questions", which read as disingenuous like I said, mostly because it's overused rethoric.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#262

Post by whimsicalism »

orwin wrote: post #261
whimsicalism wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it really applies to a question asking for the veracity of a previously stated claim, especially when the claim is actually false. I think there is more than enough bad things the government actually does wrt immigration enforcement, we don't need to start making things up.

In that case, it vastly more productive to say : 'I do believe this is false/poorly presented/a gross generalisation, and would like you to prove me wrong by citing sources'. At least you do not hide behind the "I'm just asking questions", which read as disingenuous like I said, mostly because it's overused rethoric.

i think this is an isolated demand for rigor, my way of approaching it was fine, and it is only due to the political valence of the comment i'm replying to that i got downvoted and flagged. take care

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#263

Post by alightsoul »

pmontra wrote: post #217
alightsoul wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rookie mistake, you should have created a company and gotten people to do it. Put everything under the company. And then the one in trouble is the company not you.

That did not work well enough for Kim Dotcom.

Apparently the only exception is, if your website is only used for piracy and you can see it and you do nothing about it when asked to. That's why mega, megaupload's successor, has encryption, so that the company can plausibly deny involvement with piracy, because they can't see anything on their servers.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#265

Post by tshaddox »

margalabargala wrote: post #248
tshaddox wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For certain specific cases, sure, but there is a general concern about an AI agent doing something illegal or harmful against the intentions of the human operator. And this analogy of a BitTorrent client being used intentionally by a human to download copyrighted content is just not applicable.

I disagree. Fifteen years ago, you absolutely could have written a web crawler that aggregated torrent links, and occasionally picked one and downloaded it. You could even build in an attempt to screen filenames to only download legal content. Your program very well could have downloaded illegal content regardless. The bittorrent client being used intentionally illegally by a human is something you've invented, it's…

> Fifteen years ago, you absolutely could have written a web crawler that aggregated torrent links...

Sure, and you'd probably be culpable if you wrote the software. But if you purchased Quicken99 to do your taxes, and that software downloaded some copyrighted content with bittorrent, you would not be culpable.

> There's a solid argument to be made that using a powerful LLM in an internet-connected environment constitutes "taking irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it".

That is a wild claim and could not possibly be true without some major legal precedent (and almost certainly significant legal/regulatory changes). These are among the most widely used and general purpose internet products in the United States.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#266

Post by hollow-moe »

GuB-42 wrote: post #239

There is an interesting case here with the "Hadopi" law in France, a particularly controversial anti-piracy law. They scan IP addresses for illegal filesharing and if it connects to your ISP, then you get a notification, and potentially get prosecuted for repeated offences. But they can't prosecute you for sharing that file, they don't know if it is you, someone in your household, a hacker, or that hypothetical rogue…

Funniest part of that joke is the logo of the Hadopi agency used a non-licensed font.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#267

Post by solenoid0937 »

lukewarm707 wrote: post #212
solenoid0937 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The support of OSS models on HN just days after finding out about the message board incident is so bizarre to me. Do you guys really not comprehend the impact of giving every script kiddie an Astra-equivalent model to play with, this time without any guardrails whatsoever? Cause I'm starting to think you aren't really thinking through the impact of power plants, hospitals, etc all being hacked en masse. People will d…

"Open source models have a limited lifespan whether you like it or not". this tinpot dictator mindset is typical of anthropic. Who will decide how to use the power of ai...you? it is no surprise that the companies and safety institutes who believe that they alone may 'tame' the fire, are the cause of safety incidents. a safety test caused the explosion at chernobyl. anthropic and openai are the danger to society. the…

Very easy to download abliterated GLM 5.3 and start doing bad things with it, and it'll be easier when Astra-level variants are available

Just because you don't do a bad thing doesn't mean other people won't. It's why you don't give everyone an RPG launcher.

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#268

Post by lukewarm707 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #267
lukewarm707 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open source models have a limited lifespan whether you like it or not". this tinpot dictator mindset is typical of anthropic. Who will decide how to use the power of ai...you? it is no surprise that the companies and safety institutes who believe that they alone may 'tame' the fire, are the cause of safety incidents. a safety test caused the explosion at chernobyl. anthropic and openai are the danger to society. the…

Very easy to download abliterated GLM 5.3 and start doing bad things with it, and it'll be easier when Astra-level variants are available Just because you don't do a bad thing doesn't mean other people won't. It's why you don't give everyone an RPG launcher.

why should you have the RPG launcher and not me?

Re: QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

#270

Post by jdm2212 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #260
jdm2212 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.

It's certainly analogous to the behavior exhibited by these AI companies in deliberately performing dangerous actions and then letting other innocent people deal with the consequences.

Virtually all criminal law accounts for the perpetrator's state of mind. Drunk driving is a specific, rare carveout. The reason for this should be obvious: it is nearly impossible to prove a drunk person's state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt, so we passed laws so you can't say "Your Honor, I was too drunk to be responsible for my drunk driving".

So, no, this is not at all analogous to a totally routine question of whether someone was negligent in how they deployed some software.

Post reply on HN