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

561–570 of 612 posts

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#561

Post by tiohijazi »

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.

You could subscribe to the idea that natural evolution is an autocomplete.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#562

Post by ceejayoz »

emodendroket wrote: post #560
ceejayoz wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. He seems to do exactly that.

Yes, the President enjoys great latitude to do things that are ill advised, immoral, or harmful without breaking any laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause would seem to disagree in this scenario.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#563

Post by scotty79 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #557
scotty79 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Specifically what legal type of negligence are you referring to and how does that known or obvious rule fit into the standard legal tests? Does that known of obvious rule have to be a law? There were no ‘rules’ about attaching strings from your doorknob to the trigger of a shotgun and pointing the gun at your door, but when someone died from just that, it was pretty famously determined to be negligent.

I'm sure that when someone dies as a result of mishandling of AI, some rules are going to be established. At the latest. We are just very soon.

Shotguns and strings and concept of booby trapping were well understood before the rules were established. We are only scraping the surface of what AI is and what it can be capable of. Besides, booby traps are more than negligent, at least in some countries.

If you are seeking analogy, radioactivity might be a better one. The rules about handling radioactive materials in the first few decades after its discovery were lax when compared to modern ones and things now considered criminally negligent weren't back then.

Maybe in 2050 soemthing what OpenAI did would be considered negligent, but it might have been for the reasons you might not expect.

For example it might be mandatory to test new containment dedicated for further tests you should first spend at least 10 million dollars of compute for AI to try to break out of it. Or it might be illegal to use closed source software as any part of containment. Rules that we end up with might be compeltely different from what we imagine them today.

Acusing openai of attack or of criminal negligence at this point is like accusing Skłodowska-Curie that your wine didin't come out great because her exepriments killed some yeast.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#565

Post by stratos123 »

overfeed wrote: post #554
CamperBob2 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> then language alone wouldn't be enough to encode and embody reasoning capabilities I disagree, language is the product of, not the mechanism for thought. People who lose their faculty of speech (or haven't gained them) have complete thoughts and executive function. CoT is a hack to use language (i.e. autoregression) to simulate reasoning, and it's very effective at it. Human minds can acquire, hold and use axioms a…

> Human minds can acquire, hold and use axioms as building blocks for actual reasoning, LLMs use statistical likelihood.

This is not even slightly true. Even when trying, humans commit logical mistakes at notable rates, because the behavior of our minds is inherently nondeterministic. Human minds are not built for logic and need to twist themselves into knots and rely on symbolic representations to do it. There is such a thing as valid reasoning - predicate calculus, decision theory - and humans only emulate it with some accuracy, in hacky ways, and only because our brains were imperfectly taught to do that over millenia of evolutionary pressure. LLMs are much the same way.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#566

Post by mexicocitinluez »

scotty79 wrote: post #541
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a DUI lawyer. "Your honor, while my client was driving with a .3 BAC, it was not his intention to slam into that van with a family of 4 in it killing everybody. It was an accident."

There are written rules about alcohol and driving. There aren't any about AI isolation.

There are written rules about hacking. Cmon.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#567

Post by qarl »

angoragoats wrote: post #546
qarl wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You are ascribing intent where you have no evidence or proof As I said already, the evidence is in the language they use, unless you think that OpenAI employees are dumb enough to genuinely believe that an LLM is “thinking.” (By the way, I’d love to see an historical, academic use of that term, which you’ve conveniently neglected to mention.) Anthropomorphizing their product benefits them. > Those terms continue to…

This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years?

And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence.

The fact that they use the word "learning" does not imply they are trying to deceive the public. Sorry. It doesn't follow. AGAIN - these are the words that have been used for 70 years.

I have a question - if I made mechanical teeth and described its actions as "chewing", would I be trying to deceive you? Or would I just be using language in a new way, to explain an analogous situation, as has done with language for all time.

But... I get the feeling we may just have to agree to disagree here.

I hope you have a nice day.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#568

Post by angoragoats »

qarl wrote: post #567
angoragoats wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are ascribing intent where you have no evidence or proof As I said already, the evidence is in the language they use, unless you think that OpenAI employees are dumb enough to genuinely believe that an LLM is “thinking.” (By the way, I’d love to see an historical, academic use of that term, which you’ve conveniently neglected to mention.) Anthropomorphizing their product benefits them. > Those terms continue to…

This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence. The fact that they use the word "learning" does not imply they are trying to deceive the public. Sorry. It doesn't follow. AGAIN - these are the words that have been used for 70 years. I…

> This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years?

No, I am stating that the term “machine learning” as used in the Samuel paper and continuously used by researchers and programmers in that context up until the present is distinctly different from the word “learning” as used in public-facing LLM chatbot product copy and press releases. And as far as I’m aware, “reasoning” and “thinking” have no historical analogues, they were just invented to describe something that is distinctly not reasoning or thinking in any prior sense of the words.

> I have a question - if I made mechanical teeth and described its actions as "chewing", would I be trying to deceive you?

No. If I designed an algorithm for mimicking grammatically-correct speech, which given a certain input produces (deterministically) a superficially plausible, fluent response, and described its actions as “thinking,” would I be trying to deceive you?

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#569

Post by DrewADesign »

scotty79 wrote: post #563
DrewADesign wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically what legal type of negligence are you referring to and how does that known or obvious rule fit into the standard legal tests? Does that known of obvious rule have to be a law? There were no ‘rules’ about attaching strings from your doorknob to the trigger of a shotgun and pointing the gun at your door, but when someone died from just that, it was pretty famously determined to be negligent.

I'm sure that when someone dies as a result of mishandling of AI, some rules are going to be established. At the latest. We are just very soon. Shotguns and strings and concept of booby trapping were well understood before the rules were established. We are only scraping the surface of what AI is and what it can be capable of. Besides, booby traps are more than negligent, at least in some countries. If you are seekin…

I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved— the gun case being an important point in our legal system’s handling of negligence — and your answer basically translates into you not knowing. Negligence is not exclusively criminal in the US legal system, but the underlying concept of negligence is pretty consistent. If you’re not simply toeing the line for OpenAI and want to move beyond your vibes-based understanding of the legal concept, there’s a lot of info out there, including the full test, the reasonable person concept, and very relevant examples of how this worked in real trials. I’m not interested in debating whatever your personal take on negligence means here because it’s largely irrelevant.

Re: OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

#570

Post by qarl »

angoragoats wrote: post #568
qarl wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence. The fact that they use the word "learning" does not imply they are trying to deceive the public. Sorry. It doesn't follow. AGAIN - these are the words that have been used for 70 years. I…

> This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? No, I am stating that the term “machine learning” as used in the Samuel paper and continuously used by researchers and programmers in that context up until the present is distinctly different from the word “learning” as used in public-facin…

I get the feeling we may just have to agree to disagree here.
Post reply on HN