41–50 of 151 posts
Funny enough while "We hacked Google's AI" is going to get the clicks, in reality they hacked the one part of Gemini that was NOT the LLM (a sandbox environment meant to run untrusted user-provided code). And "leaked its source code" is straight up click bait.
Ok, we put the sandbox in the title above. Thanks! (Submitted title was "We hacked Google's A.I Gemini and leaked its source code (at least some part)")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I submitted this HN link with a title that exactly matches the one on the article, but I didn't write the title on the article. AFAIK HN posts should match the title of the article they link to.
Actually the rule is designed to let you correct misleading titles: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I've done that now ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509103 ). I appreciate your scruples though! Because even though you would have been on the right side of HN's rules to correct a misleading (and/or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but having the names to the fields, directly from Google, is very helpful for further understanding what's available from within the sandbox.
Reminds me of this HN article from a month ago with lots of commentary on whether a database scheme is proprietary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43175628
In other words, it should not be about the intent of the requester, but the intent of its owner; and in the case of that article, either by bias in narrative, or the fact that it rhymes with events of the past, there is some tomfoolery about.
Funny enough while "We hacked Google's AI" is going to get the clicks, in reality they hacked the one part of Gemini that was NOT the LLM (a sandbox environment meant to run untrusted user-provided code). And "leaked its source code" is straight up click bait.
Ok, we put the sandbox in the title above. Thanks! (Submitted title was "We hacked Google's A.I Gemini and leaked its source code (at least some part)")
I mean I “hacked” this site too by those standards.
That's the system I work on! Please feel free to ask any questions. All opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Funny enough while "We hacked Google's AI" is going to get the clicks, in reality they hacked the one part of Gemini that was NOT the LLM (a sandbox environment meant to run untrusted user-provided code). And "leaked its source code" is straight up click bait.
They hacked the sandbox, and leaked nothing. The article is entertaining though.
They leaked one file in the sandbox that contained lots of internal proto files. The security team reviewed everything in the sandbox and thought nothing in it is sensitive and gave the green light; apparently the review didn't catch this in the sandbox. I guess this is a failing of the security review process, and possibly also how the blaze build system worked so well that people forgot a step existed because it wa…
So does Google Chrome.
Awww, I was looking forward to seeing some of the leak ;) Oh well. Nice find and breakdown! Somewhat relatedly, it occurred to me recently just how important issues like prompt injection, etc are for LLMs. I've always brushed them off as unimportant to _me_ since I'm most interested in local LLMs. Who cares if a local LLM is weak to prompt injection or other shenanigans? It's my AI to do with as I please. If anything…
> reading the wrong thing from the wrong backalley of the internet, and suddenly they are taken over by a mind virus of sorts. What a wild future. This already happens to people on the internet.
That's the system I work on! Please feel free to ask any questions. All opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.