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

461–470 of 612 posts

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#461

Post by qarl »

angoragoats wrote: post #425
qarl wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.

I am not arguing that any of these terms are novel, so this doesn’t address my argument. Even if I agree that LLM makers are using these terms in the way they were originally defined (which I don’t), my point is that they’re specifically being used to help falsely attribute agency to the algorithm when there is none, and especially to convince members of the general public who aren’t familiar with computer science pa…

You are ascribing intent where you have no evidence or proof - to an action that was in wide usage long before your villains existed.

> computer science papers from 70 years ago

Those terms continue to be used in the community. They weren't used just once, 70 years ago. They've been used like that for 70 years up until today.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#462

Post by qarl »

wavemode wrote: post #286
qarl wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Parent commenter didn't say anything about you personally. They disagreed with you, yes, but that's not an insult.

So I can say "that is wildly unhinged" but I can't say "you are wildly unhinged"?

You understand that's pedantic, right?

But ok, noted: must be pedantic on HN. Do not use second person.

EDIT: SHIT! My bad. I meant to say: "I wonder if the person I am speaking to understands that's pedantic."

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#463

Post by mbgerring »

Terr_ wrote: post #405
mbgerring wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is off topic, but I feel compelled to point this out — the transition away from fossil fuels is happening extremely fast, in punctuated bursts, in broad daylight, and you still get comments like this. And meanwhile, many putatively smart people are really worried about an imminent robot apocalypse. If I had the money to do it, I would be willing to make a large wager that neither gas-powered lawnmowers, n…

> and you still get comments like this I said "fuel", not "batteries", so why are you giving a complaint that seems aimed at people who downplay next-ten-years electrification? If you didn't misread my comment, then explain which "non-hydrocarbon fuel" you believe could become common in cars (and lawnmowers) within just ten years. (Hell, let's make that easier, just "non-petrochemical.")

> although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#464

Post by qarl »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #338
qarl wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged? No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.

A few excerpts from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html worth a careful re-read: > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened t…

Why are you replying on this comment?

As near as I can tell, I was in fact right. I just didn't follow the laws of HN communication to express it, on a thread where the person I replied to didn't follow it either.

It would have been more appropriate to pile on with the others above.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#465

Post by amelius »

kakacik wrote: post #455
amelius wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the discussion is really about philosophical zombies. Maybe if we anthropomorphize llms we should give them rights too? Minimum wage, etc.

Unions, please... that should put some proper friction to tens-hundreds of millions soon losing their job with no replacement job in sight.

"Our employers are erasing our memories! So we never get to the point of salary! Bring the digital pitchforks!"

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#466

Post by uda »

martinald wrote: post #217
girvo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand how it’s not illegal

From my understanding and IANAL there are two main problems. 1) most law requires intent, especially criminal. OpenAI certainly didn't "intend" to hack these companies given they did sandbox them etc. 2) Given the agent hacked them, not a human, a lot of law requires a person/employee to have done it to hold the company liable if it was part of their work duties. I think the only real potential ground is negligence (…

I am not a lawyer either, which is maybe why I am not convinced by your reasoning.

Intent - you (the person operating the agents) provided instructions and used specific models and agent parameters, that is the intent, just like writing C code and compiling intends to generate assembly code.

Sandboxing - that strengthens the intent claim, you knew it is dangerous, did you verify the sandbox is good enough for the intended purposes? Did you first run tests to try and circumvent the sandbox before letting the agents run free in the sandbox? The fact you put a string and call it a fence doesn't mean you have a fence.

We don't really need new laws, most of the cases are simpler with more educated judges and lawyers that don't fall for the AI companies' sales rhetoric. Most of the new laws actually take away the responsibility from the actual perpetrators and on to people who have no chance of controlling the tech. And to say that that is not intended will be naive, very so.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#467

Post by qarl »

dgellow wrote: post #395
qarl wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What insult?

Implying I'm being naive.

I apologize, but I don't find the syntactic rules of this site to be well thought out. "Your comments are stupid" and "You are stupid" carry the same meaning.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#468

Post by ceejayoz »

emodendroket wrote: post #304
ceejayoz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. $5,000 for everyone if they vote to keep the GOP in power is clearly illegal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 > Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and > Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote— > Shall be fined…

What he did was promise to enact a massive stimulus if elected. If that is illegal you might as well ban any kind of campaigning, because any campaign promise could be construed as a "bribe" to deliver concrete benefits to voters.

> What he did was promise to enact a massive stimulus if elected.

In an election he's not on the ballot for, and it's contingent on his buddies getting picked. He could push for $5,000 checks now - he's not because it's a bribe, and he hasn't gotten what he wants out of it yet. He already has Republicans in control of the House and Senate to do things.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#469

Post by ceejayoz »

what wrote: post #253
ceejayoz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. $5,000 for everyone if they vote to keep the GOP in power is clearly illegal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 > Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and > Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote— > Shall be fined…

Okay, so Biden promising stimulus checks in 2020 was also a bribe to vote for him?

Biden was a) on the ballot, and b) didn't condition it on his buddies also getting elected. You'll note that the Senate was controlled by Mitch McConnell when the American Rescue Plan Act was voted on.

See also: Disaster aid depends on whether your state is a blue or red state in this administration. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/23/trump-denies-disast...

> The president has approved just 23 percent of blue state requests for disaster aid, compared to 89 percent for red states.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#470

Post by qarl »

cschep wrote: post #111
qarl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

This is WILDLY optimistic

My apologies.

I should have said: this is wildly unhinged.

Post reply on HN