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

OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

rubyhack.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 612 posts

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#101

Post by koops »

pixl97 wrote: post #57
bobby-cb wrote: post #36

The DOJ should be looking into prosecuting executives and board members for these kinds of hacks. The lack of controls over these kinds of training runs is completely unacceptable and negligent.

I'd eat a shoe if that ever happened, at least under the Trump DOJ. Two big reasons. OpenAI has more data, and more ability to tease secrets of politicians out of that data than nearly anyone on earth. OpenAI has an automated hacking genie that governments want to use against their enemies. Sam to Trump: "You know, some people have been saying they want to bring charges against me, but you know, I've got the best dig…

Trump's secrets are already out there, and his supporters really don't care. They never will at this point. He's not vulnerable to blackmail.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#102

Post by sho_hn »

hackernud3s wrote: post #93
ssfdg wrote: post #25

Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.

This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.

> from what I can tell.

The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments.

Did you try very hard "telling"?

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#104

Post by emodendroket »

devmor wrote: post #91
apsec112 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally doing this kind of hack would be a serious felony. I don't think it's plausible that the leaders of a major business would: - commit serious felonies - in order to deliberately trigger an investigation against themselves - which - since, in this scenario, they know their company would be investigated - might send them to jail - while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on the Leading t…

We have multiple public figures, politicians and business owners, openly committing felonies and bragging about it daily. I don't know why you think this is a deterrent. The sitting president just offered an open bribe on live television for votes for his party this week.

While his proposed policy is likely extremely unwise there's nothing illegal about it.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#105

Post by walrus01 »

hockey wrote: post #94

Does OpenAI even know? Their disclosure on the hugging face incident sounded like they found out about it well after huggingface. I wonder if they're finding out about these breaches as they happen as well, and are just too embarresed to respond. I guess the corollary here _if that were true_ is that they've been training this method of cheating into their models for longer than _they've_ even known. Given they've ju…

I would think it's entirely plausible that they have so many R&D agents/LLMs in active use at any one time that it's far beyond the capacity of any human to review the log files of their activity. Even just to go through the reasoning. It's hard enough for 1 person running opencode to keep up with the reasoning from 1 very verbose/long-thinking LLM with fast tok/s output for a small discrete single-purpose project.

Whatever OpenAI is doing, if it's being properly logged, it must be a firehose of logs.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#106

Post by crummy »

podgietaru wrote: post #66
apsec112 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally doing this kind of hack would be a serious felony. I don't think it's plausible that the leaders of a major business would: - commit serious felonies - in order to deliberately trigger an investigation against themselves - which - since, in this scenario, they know their company would be investigated - might send them to jail - while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on the Leading t…

I sort of implied the other thing in my comment. But. There is no version of america that exists today where a billionaire gets sent to prison. This is the moment in history where this shit is possible and accepted. If they don't do it now, they never can.

Didn’t Epstein get sent to prison?

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#108

Post by siren2026 »

apsec112 wrote: post #56
hgoel wrote: post #19

I wonder how much of this is intentional "incompetence" so they can justify the most recent campaign to build a regulatory moat against competition. The repeated refusals to disclose until caught certainly seem malicious, yet at the same time the boasting about their capabilities is also at an all time high.

Intentionally doing this kind of hack would be a serious felony. I don't think it's plausible that the leaders of a major business would: - commit serious felonies - in order to deliberately trigger an investigation against themselves - which - since, in this scenario, they know their company would be investigated - might send them to jail - while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on the Leading t…

Probably not intentionally but they have an incentive in not air-gapping those agents correctly, knowing something might happen.

Incentives drive everything. Both OpenAI and Anthropic love those incidents as they both signal they have models with amazing capabilities and they should be regulated by the government (read: regulation that they will lobby for and that will be difficult to achieve for open source models)

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#109

Post by siren2026 »

hgoel wrote: post #87
apsec112 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally doing this kind of hack would be a serious felony. I don't think it's plausible that the leaders of a major business would: - commit serious felonies - in order to deliberately trigger an investigation against themselves - which - since, in this scenario, they know their company would be investigated - might send them to jail - while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on the Leading t…

I'm not saying they did the hacking intentionally, I'm saying they're intentionally playing loose with the obvious safety measures to make AI seem more dangerous than it is.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN