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

531–540 of 612 posts

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#531

Post by beepbooptheory »

daishi55 wrote: post #525
beepbooptheory wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then what's at stake here either way? If it's not meant to speak to the propriety or not of anthropomorphizing the LLM, what are we actually trying to police here?

I’m not policing anything. I’m claiming that if you truly in your heart believe that frontier LLMs are roughly as sophisticated and impressive as “autocomplete”, then your mental model of reality needs some serious readjustment.

Right sure, but why specifically should they? What is gained or lost one way or another, if its just a matter of one mental model vs another? Models are definitionally useful abstractions, right? They aren't better or worse necessarily by only their bearing on reality, but what they do for us as models. So again, what's at stake here? What is the correct/good model we should have (instead of the autocompleter one), and what does it give us or articulate that others can't?

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#532

Post by ceejayoz »

emodendroket wrote: post #499
ceejayoz wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

If “his buddies” are not elected the President cannot realistically enact legislation.

> You'll note that the Senate was controlled by Mitch McConnell when the American Rescue Plan Act was voted on.

Please, read the posts you're replying to. I gave a clear example proving that they can indeed do so. Biden's stimulus payments were not conditional on Democratic control of Congress.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#533

Post by fragmede »

mbesto wrote: post #526
teravor wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're still autocomplete LLMs are simulations and the tokens are the ticks. if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. the argument could be made that you are autocomplete anyway - neural dynamics. the autocomplete reduction is vacuous.

> if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. Might be one of the worst takes I've ever read.

But is it wrong? Humans are a bag of chemicals that somehow has consciousness, yet going around calling people meatbags doesn't do anything to diminish the wonder that is the human brain. Yet calling LLMs glorified autocomplete comes across as a slur.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#534

Post by overfeed »

teravor wrote: post #329
jasongi wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you still believe LLMs are "autocomplete", your cache of understanding about them needs invalidating and regenerating They're still autocomplete - just because when outputting a token they have hidden activations regarding further continuations, does not make them any less of an autocomplete, it just makes the model better at producing coherent long-range completions. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that we shoul…

> They're still autocomplete LLMs are simulations and the tokens are the ticks. if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. the argument could be made that you are autocomplete anyway - neural dynamics. the autocomplete reduction is vacuous.

> if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too.

The underlying mechanisms for producing language are very different, in the same way birds and airplanes have different mechanisms for flying.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#536

Post by CamperBob2 »

overfeed wrote: post #534
teravor wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're still autocomplete LLMs are simulations and the tokens are the ticks. if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. the argument could be made that you are autocomplete anyway - neural dynamics. the autocomplete reduction is vacuous.

> if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. The underlying mechanisms for producing language are very different, in the same way birds and airplanes have different mechanisms for flying.

No, not really. If the old "birds and airplanes" or "swimmers and submarines" metaphors were valid, then language alone wouldn't be enough to encode and embody reasoning capabilities, as has recently become evident.

LLMs are more like human minds than we are willing to admit. Such reluctance is perhaps the least surprising aspect of any of this.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#537

Post by keeda »

fragmede wrote: post #533
mbesto wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. Might be one of the worst takes I've ever read.

But is it wrong? Humans are a bag of chemicals that somehow has consciousness, yet going around calling people meatbags doesn't do anything to diminish the wonder that is the human brain. Yet calling LLMs glorified autocomplete comes across as a slur.

Even calling it a slur may be an anthropomorphism ;-) To me it is more serious, it shows a distinct lack of understanding (or, if I’m being uncharitable, intentional honesty) and hence immediately makes me doubt anything else that person has said.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#538

Post by CamperBob2 »

nprateem wrote: post #309
creatonez wrote: post #10

You shouldn't be allowed to have an internet connection if you're going to use it for unsandboxed agent slop with no access controls or human confirmation. This has nothing to do with hypothetical future AGI. It's the same type of idiocy as pressing a bunch of random buttons on a chemical factory control panel and then thinking you won't be criminally charged for it because the equipment caused the problem. If you ac…

They were sandboxed without Internet but found a way to gain access and break out.

Then they weren't sandboxed.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#539

Post by CamperBob2 »

tikimcfee wrote: post #216
nullc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every mass genocide in the history of humanity has followed logic like yours. People don't kill millions of humans because they want to do harm-- they do so because they think they are doing the ultimate good a good so great that is justifies the loss of life. If AI ever does cause serious direct harm to humanity it will be because of logic like this.

What an absolutely hopeless and pessimistic world view. And you are absolutely wrong. What's caused genocide is listening to a group or control center that believes They Are The Right Ones. I said something akin to "wouldn't it be nice to see Anthropic post results of putting this into a simulation gym of redistribution of wealth? What does Astra's secret model do when it's asked that question?" Me stating it'd be ni…

edit: what makes me more sad is seeing your credentials in technology and science.

Nothing else has ever helped with the things you're bewailing.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#540

Post by scotty79 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #165
scotty79 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a word for attack with no intent. It's accident.

> We have a word for attack with no intent. It's accident. And we have a word for an accident caused by people that failed to implement proper risk mitigation, were not paying attention, and should have known better. It’s negligence.

Yes. But for someone to be negligent they have to violate known and/or obvious rules. There are no established rules about how to handle AI isolation.

The fact that something had undesirable outcome doesn't automatically make it negligence or attack.

Post reply on HN