421–430 of 436 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the purported vulnerability. What I am saying is that I would be surprised if the URL were rendered, let alone made it to the victim.
I ended up making it render automatically, but they didn't really seem to care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can still build a system that isn't vulnerable by limiting the API the LLM can access. A process consuming untrusted comments for summarisation shouldn't have access to account private data, it should just deliver a summary report. Another process can them scan that and remove/disable links etc.
Sure. But that's not what was being suggested in the comment I responded to. (There are also problems with what you're suggesting, though, such as the summary report still being ripe for abuse in similar ways as the blog post describes.)
I don't think it's useful to throw your hands in the air and say LLM context statistics are ungovernable. Both context hardening and action shielding architectures are addressing this, and in combination with well designed pipelines the risk is controllable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>my engineering licence would be revoked and I would be kicked out of the industry. This isn't because you're a "real" engineer, it's because of regulation and industry licensing around specific engineering disciplines that didn't exist until the start of the 20th century. Railroad engineers in the 1800's didn't have the same set of regulations to follow, or the same liability for mistakes. Software engineering could…
It’s because they’re a “real” professional. Professionals (members of a profession) self-police, something software engineers don’t do.
The Bar exam in the US didn't start until the 1780's, so lawyers before then weren't "real" professionals either?
It's a ridiculous argument.
A better one might be that the externalities and opportunities for software engineering to kill people, or be directly tied to deaths or negative outcomes, didn't exist or weren't well enough documented until recently. As an immature field/industry that's not surprising, but it does point to a responsibility by the community to push for standards that don't currently exist.
I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…
[flagged]
If a programmer fucked up something "train leaks" related and he ignored that because of xyz, there would be trouble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a train crashes, people die. If Youtube crashes, no one dies.
Unless some sensitive private footage leaks then who knows. You can blame the subsequent action on the individual but if the footage leaked due to a bug Google refused to fix are they completely blameless?
2. If you upload sensitive footage to a public video sharing website, I don't really have any concern for that footage being leaked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once I worked in a company that had an ex-Googler on the board, who insisted on calling us engineers and wanted us to call ourselves that. In swedish, of course, 'ingenjörer'. It's not a protected title in Sweden, but we still refused, because we were nothing like engineers. We were a minuscule team of mostly self-taught hackers who happened to be employed to solve business problems in a system for managing other com…
I worked for several American companies in Sweden an all of them insisted on calling us engineers. Many I work with happen to be engineers, but I dropped out before getting my (computer) engineering degree. It's embarrassing. I would never call myself a software engineer or any other kind of engineer (or a doctor or lawyer or anything else I am not).
I can also tell my tools to automate my work once I understand it well enough.
One of my more senior colleagues at that company called himself a 'fixer', because to his understanding, what he did was fix things.