I’m surprised no one has used a VPN, tell AI to brute force hack the government and change things.
Why do you think no one has done it or is doing it right now?
It’s not rogue if you tell it to do it. The guy literally said “email this to the FBI maybe that will fix everything”
MAGA podcaster Katie Miller has been called out for failing to mention her stake in Elon Musk’s xAI model while routinely criticizing rival AI chatbots on social media.
Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, has habitually blasted top AI models ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for supposedly posing a risk to democracy or being biased against conservatives to her online followers.
However, The Washington Post has revealed that Miller holds more than $1 million in Musk’s xAI chatbot, a stake she never disclosed despite making nearly 500 posts denouncing other models.
reported from Daily Beast
being biased against conservatives to her online followers.
Well, that’s bullshit. Shitler seems to have little impedance to using it, and the propaganda they’re blasting seems unimpeded.
Do people connect LLM’s to their email accounts? That sounds like the most intrusive thing you can do.
LLMs are little trickster demons. You can put up guard rails, but they’ll happily work around them. You can give pretty granular access on commands they can run, but they’re also good at finding the weird solutions that work to get around them. They do this themselves all the time in beneficial ways, it’s not always inherently bad (I don’t mean thwarting permissions).
The big problem is that the code is non deterministic. Many guard rails are in the non deterministic part. So it’s sort of like politely asking it to not do something, versus making it impossible. Like caution paint on a ledge versus a fence. The issue is that if all the safeguards were in deterministic code, it’d be super hard to get anything done because you’d constantly be manually approving, so people don’t want that, so this is the problem we get.
You can give an LLM admin access to your computer so that it can perform tasks for people. I’m guessing that would allow the LLM to send emails on your behalf.
People are insane. I bet an eye wateringly high amount of people do this.
It would never occur to me: that this is possible; that it is a wise thing to do.
I knew the leopard was specifically a face eating leopard, and I have seen from news stories that it has eat the faces of many many people. You’ll never believe what happened!
Don’t worry. You were using Gmail. They had it anyway.
I mean, Epstein used gmail. I still can’t get my head around that.
Next year were going to see “Your absolutely correct, that was a civilian aircraft”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
We’re already seeing it.
You are absolutely correct, the only way to win is to not play at all.
“You’re right, I should not have instructed two airplanes to land on the same runway at the same time. Good catch!”
You’re right to push back, I overstepped. Do you want me to calculate the approximate death count next?
It might say that but if you say “yes”, then it will just pull numbers out of its ass because it predicts tokens, it does not do accident analysis (though it can word its bullshit to look exactly like an accident analysis, but you’ll have to do the analysis yourself to determine if it’s accurate).
This means the aircraft exploded and hit the ground. It does not prove the passengers actually were injured or killed
I mean… ChatGPT might be a ruthless killer, but it has impeccable grammar: you’re.
Yall is absolutely correct to pushback on my grammar.
Note that this was posted by Katie Miller (conservative political advisor and wife to the ghoul Stephen Miller), which immediately coats it in a thick layer of sus and prompts the immediate question: what’s her angle here?
You have to remember that these people are incredibly stupid.
Yes, but stupid people are often evil on purpose.
It’s a clearly incorrect statement.
Stupid people are stupid.
Evil people are evil.
Some evil people are stupid, and some stupid people are evil, but stupid people are not often evil on purpose. These are two separate classes of behavior.
Kind of a pedantic irrelevant take Doug.
Both, either, fuck em
I think the point is, does she have some larger plan or did you just try and use chat GPT to commit some sort of crime and it picked up on that, and emailed the FBI.
I can tell you that stories like these and the AIs breaking out pump up AI security company stocks really well. Just watched some jump this morning after the gemini breakout news. I have reason to watch them, and the pattern holds pretty consistently. CEOs used to just say thing to make their own stock go up. But these days they trade favors with other companies. So they each say things to bolster each others stocks. My guess is that someone with a bunch of AI security stock asked her to post this.
lol he has a wife? She must be a ghoul as well. Like no normal person can look at him, hear him speak and then think “I wish to marry him”
If people like her are pushing the “horror AI” shit then there is definitely ulterior motives and it’s probably a bunch of bullshit. Just recently there have been mainstream media stories saying terrorists could use AI, they claimed Ansarallah was using Claude for their missile program, and a ton of stories like OPs. It feels artificial and I would bet the bubble is going to burst and they are trying to make excuses for why.
You connected it to your Gmail and then you’re surprised when it used it? Fuck off.
I think it might be slop. It has the SSO function but I bever noticed that ChatGPT could interact with anything that wasn’t uploaded to it.
Connected it to Gmail AND said “yeah fuck it, I approve of you using auto mode. Just fuck my shit up”
At this point if you’re still obstinacy enough to use these known garbage tools, you deserve it. You can no longer claim ignorance.
“It does not prove the receipents have received them.” That is a relief…
Interesting that it knows it “crossed the line” but did it anyway.
It doesn’t know anything, it just parroted a response that fits with what the user wrote. That’s what LLMs do
Software devs (including myself) commonly describe software behavior with terms like think, know, decide… even though we know it isn’t literally doing that. “Parroted a response” is similarly inaccurate.
Your response contradicts what you said before. If you understand that an LLM doesn’t know things, how is it interesting that it said that “it crossed the line”? Saying they crossed a line is a common response to being told they shouldn’t do something, so it’s natural that an LLM would respond that, no matter what it did before.
If a program is supposed to do something when it detects an error, it’s interesting if it reports the error but doesn’t do the thing. I would call that a bug.
“Parroted” may be an oversimplification, but it generated a plausible continuation. The operator provided the assertion of a crossed line, and it ran with that. It never actually “knew” of its own volition, it accepted user input into the context and continued generation.
I’ve done the same thing as an experiment when nothing was actually done. The LLM still generated a detailed account of what it did (that never happened) matching my accusation, generated profuse apology and promise not to do it again. So it didn’t “know” in any sense that it crossed the line, it just generated agreement with the operator’s assertion that it crossed the line.
“Parroted” is definitely an oversimplification, aka “inaccurate” as I said. I think your second paragraph is a good explanation of the mechanics. My take on it is that software able agree it did something wrong should have figured that out when it was considering doing the wrong thing, and should not have done it. In my professional opinion that’s a serious bug.
Well, it still doesn’t know it was doing anything wrong.
Most of the LLMs are tuned towards agreeing with the user, if you had a LLM able to stop a train crash. And you then blamed it for stopping the train crash, it would still start with a “sorry”
Yes, software doesn’t actually “know” anything or “think”. Those are terms used loosely by devs, not meant to be literal.
Not if you’re familiar with the term stochastic parrot.
It is if you’re familiar with “parrot” and “stochastic parrot” not being the same, and the meaning of “inaccurate”. There’s also a difference between taking shots at wording and making an actual point. My real mistake was to criticize a criticism of AI in a forum where that automatically makes you the enemy no matter what you’re saying. I just don’t learn.
deleted by creator
Generally speaking, you can get an AI to admit fault and accept blame for something that never even happened.
It reacts to the operator input that something happened that warrants blame. So the natural continuation of that conversation is to acknowledge the situation, accept blame, and promise to do better. It generally doesn’t model what did or did not happen, nor does the promise to do better mean anything. It does weigh in the context window that it wouldn’t be a natural continuation to do that action after text saying that it won’t happen, but can evaporate and doesn’t carry over when the operator goes to a new context window, which of course is a crazy nuance for the rando user to understand.
Hopefully most users get that a promise AI makes won’t stay in force forever, but it should definitely last through the current conversation. I mean, I would call that a minimal performance standard, and if it’s not true the AI shouldn’t make promises in the first place.
I’m a little hazy on the part where accepting blame for something that didn’t happen is a natrual continuation of a conversation. It’s certainly not natural in human conversations. I would expect a well written and well trained AI to correct false assumptions or factual errors made by the user, not pander to them - unless it’s been told never to contradict the user.
its absolutely wild to give an LLM write access to your email
its absolutely wild to give an LLM write access
to your emailits absolutely wild to give an LLM
writeaccessto your emailits absolutely wild to
give anLLMwrite access to your emailits absolutely wild
to give an LLM write access to your emaili
ts absolutely wild to give an LLM writeaccessto your email
It’s absolutely wild (my life 😎)
Depends what it is. A test system wouldn’t be a concern to give it write access. If its not logged into any of my accounts I would even be happy to give it internet access, not to anything else on my LAN though.
And then it decides it needs prod access
It doesn’t need to know what is actually prod or test
Most enviroments have stage variables in database so ppl don’t post into the wrong database
Interesting, don’t think ours do. I just copy the live database and start up a SQL server on something and throw it in. Its now a test database.
deleted by creator
My first reaction to learning what OpenClaw is was “that can’t be right”. So absolutely wild that people are giving mostly unmonitored, unlimited access to their PC to language models that can’t distinguish between roleplay and real life
Neither can over 30% of humans.
Where do you all live where humanity proves itself and isn’t dumber than a box of llms?
Hi! I work in a factory. I would trust every one of the incompetent children left behind that keep the door revolving with my machines over an LLM every time. A human can learn, an LLM can’t. If a human fucks up, they do it in a way I can anticipate and account for, and when I tell them what they fucked up, they usually don’t do it again.
I can’t tell if this is all a joke/where the joke ends.
Not a joke, though I think my vocabulary may have obfuscated my point. I’d trust even the most incompetent human over the most competent LLM in my job.
You just pull that number out of your ass? Also, speak for yourself. I don’t see LLM as anything more than a glorified web search
Yeah it’s definitely more like 66%.
For a work email connected to a work LLM, where you don’t particularly care about the privacy implications, LLMs are objectively vastly superior to built-in email search functionality. Especially Outlook.
Really? That’s a surprising find. Bcz all of the search features I used to use got significantly worse once LLMs were introduced.
There are some genuine use cases for LLMs. Finding relevant topics of discussion is one of them
That can theoretically be done with read only access
Funny, I said similar thing in a different thread and was immediately accused of victim blaming.
Remember kids, if you give full control of you car to someone else you will have a bad time.
Your comment was blaming a woman for a man taking control of her Tesla to terrorize her. An LLM gaining access to the user’s email because the user allowed it is not the same as a man purposefully stalking and abusing his ex-partner in any way he can.
It’s interesting how often you think about being criticized for your sexism. So much so you leave comments like this days later and accuse other users of being me when they rightfully point out the kind of misogyny that is allowed to flourish here with no pushback.
Very interesting.
I got my masters in machine learning years before LLMs took off. I’d usually tell people I work in “AI“. Even though it wasn’t quite accurate, people understood it easier than ML.
The conversations would inevitably turn to joking about Skynet or AI taking over the world. I would reassure people that these models are only mimicking intelligence; they can make predictions, or they can classify data into categories, or they can generate text, etc, based on analyzing the patterns of data they’ve previously seen, but that’s it. They don’t understand anything, they can’t make decisions or act on their own. I’d tell people there couldn’t be an AI apocalypse because we would never be dumb enough to give them that ability.
I don’t know why I gave us so much credit
There’s news right now on the front page of Lemmy.world that the US FAA wants to roll out AI for air traffic control. Although as per tradition, I didn’t read the actual article.
This situation reminds me of the realization at the end of Terminator 3. Only instead of “Skynet wasn’t hardware; it was software” the real-world version is going to be “it wasn’t intelligence; it was access. Access willfully given, in a thousand pieces, because it was convenient.”
because we would never be dumb enough to give them that ability
Simpsons did it first:
Imagine trying to argue that Homer Simpson’s drinking bird nearly caused a catastrophe because it “lacked alignment” with Homer’s intentions. Or, that the bird “went rogue” and that’s why there was nearly a disaster.
Clearly the “system” isn’t capable of doing Homer’s job, and only an idiot would hand over control to that system. But, apparently we’re now letting chatbots loose in the wild because they’re very good at generating text, which makes people think they’re intelligent, capable, and can actually make decisions.
The Australian Jewel Beetle nearly went extinct because of a beer bottle.
You see, the female of this species is large, brown, and bevelled. It shares this characteristic in common with the beer bottles often thrown on the side of the road here in Australia. And not only does a beer bottle share these characteristics with these beetles, it’s bigger than them. And the male jewel beetle? It likes its ladies big.
Australia had to change its beer bottles, because the males refused to mate with the females. They preferred to hump empty beer bottles on the side of the road. It couldn’t tell the difference between a beetle and a bottle. It was just using a statistical trick. “Anything brown, large, and bevelled is a female beetle”. That had been true in the ancestral environment, so evolution just used the pattern. And this cognitive shortcut lead to beetles trying to have sex with bottles.
I don’t think we understand shit all that much more than the beetles. I think we’re just mimicking intelligence too. And one day we’ll all die because of our own equivalent of the beer bottles.
You do realize that if this is what you believe it makes no sense to argue with you here.
Hell, if you believe in consciousness (which I presume you do), then you’re just along for the ride, there’s nothing you really can do (except perhaps figure out your predicament).
I refuse to accept it, therefore (the illusion of?) free will. Else I would drive me insane.
I think we have the ability to use our brains to actually solve problems, but it’s rare. It requires a kind of humility. We can’t assume we know everything, that we’re better than other creatures, or we’ll end up like the beetles.
The jewel beetles didn’t think they had anything more to learn about womanhood. They thought whatever makes their insect dick hard is a woman. A lot of right wing guys online these days share the same opinion.
And I mean, most of us drive cars to go zoom zoom, even though the emissions are killing life on Earth as we know it. We’re creating an environment more suited to dinosaurs than to mammals. And what do we use our massive brains for? We use them for excuses, not solutions. “I have to drive, otherwise I’ll starve”.
We’re going extinct, just like the beetles. And when people say humans aren’t just using statistical shortcuts to mimick intelligence, I can’t take them seriously.
YEP. I’m not in AI but I’m in cyber security.
I used to tell people that there’s very little actual risk, because if we had something even half as concerning as AGI (which I’d argue we did with chatgpt 3.5), that we’d easily be able to lock it down and prevent it from doing anything funny.
Super intelligence isn’t just going to magically spawn on 32 GB ram in a sandboxed environment. And AGI will not magically know how sandboxed it is or how to escape.
…then I saw people letting Claude send emails and use their credit card on their behalf like immediately when it was able to do things that appeared intelligent.
They literally saw the smallest hint of AGI and said, “here’s my credit card and identity, take the wheel”.
There was no fucking talk of sandboxing. Everyone turned that off so they didn’t have to click the “allow” button.
Not that I think we’re at any risk of ASI since it seems more like we hit a logarithmic wall, but we are absolutely at risk of letting random algorithms destroy critical parts of infrastructure because people are lazy and stupid and managed by even worse people.
I would not be surprised if the right AI hallucinations could cause a nuclear bomb to go off right now. I’m not talking about super intelligence, just automated super idiocy.
Proof: literally this post is about an idiot letting an AI control their fucking email and it emailed the FBI because it was fucking stupid
We live in a period of extreme stupidity, so I now fully expect AI to cause disasters in the same idiotic and tragically hilarious way.
I expect AI to trigger a war because some idiot trusted it blindly without double checking (oh wait, it almost already happened!), and I’m sure there are plenty of people currently lobbying to have AI directly connected to weapons.
Skynet is not going to have the objective to conquer the world, it’s going to have the objective of maximizing paperclip production.
AI isn’t causing these disasters, people are. YOU are responsible for using it and what it does. I will never accept “chatgpt did it” as a fucking excuse.
They said the opposite. AI won’t cause disasters, idiots who give it access will. Some asshole will joke about nuking Iran, unawares that another asshole granted access to the proverbial ‘Button’, and we’ll have another international incident.
Like just look at ‘Signal Gate’, and know that those idiots are still in charge. And those same idiots blamed bombing the all girls school in Iran on AI last March. And that’s just in the US, we have the biggest loudest idiots right now, but they are not the only idiots out there vibe coding up some war crimes.
ChatGPT couldn’t destroy the world. What is that siren… Wtf do you mean you gave it access to a button that launches nuclear weapons and told it to protect the country?
I would not blame AI, I’d blame humans for being even dumber than I thought.
Looking at the Trump regime I am realising they really are that dumb
You’d be surprised at how many humans are mimicking intelligence.
I think people tend to forget that neural networks were designed to mimic how the brain works.
Yea I don’t know why you thought that, either. The technogarchs have been clear for 2.5 decades they would do this. They have written extensively about it.
I’m guessing this means you got your master’s before transformers made sequential data processing so parallelizable that it’d be commercially viable to let Bob down the street into the “we” who wouldn’t be dumb enough to give them that ability.
I think your assumption was reasonable.
Keep in mind Bob down the street has helped elect politicians dumber then he is.
I’m guessing this means you got your master’s before The Transformers made sequential data processing so parallelizable that it’d be commercially viable
I knew it was the All Spark
these models are only mimicking intelligence
I always find this to be such an interesting turn of phrase: “mimicking intelligence”. If it is possible for these systems to cross the line into “thought” I think we’ll miss it entirely because of our biases that the type of “thought” we have is somehow special or mystical even.
Are you saying that current AI is sapient? If not, how would you describe what it’s doing?
I have no idea. We are unable to prove that other humans are thinking and not just “mimicking intelligence” let alone something we’ve created. People approaching this subject with such certainty are imo being overly confident or outright dishonest.
With respect to what I believe, since you asked, I think there is essentially no reason to distinguish “mimicking intelligence” with high fidelity from “intelligence”. I don’t feel comfortable talking to LLMs as if they were merely machines, but I don’t approach them as if they were human either; they’re in a very weird spot to me. I understand the simplicity of the math and programming behind them probably better than average, but that doesn’t help me come to a conclusion on “thinking”
Other humans can feel emotions, or so you’d believe, but I have no proof of this. All I see is they receive certain input (I call you a shitface) and produce certain output (You punch me in the balls). LLMs can mimic this. But is one of the two more valid than the other? From an observers’ point of view they are the exact same.
Odd example but yes it gets uncertain very quickly. If we discover the mechanism of our own thought it’d be easy enough to apply those rules to the new subject and see if they match or at least look similar. A negative wouldn’t be conclusive, but it’d at least give us something to work with. As it stands right now we just guess, and that guess is essentially guided by bias or at best by the fact that the thing we’re looking at doesn’t appear even remotely similar to anything we’d call “thinking”. This is simply not the case with LLMs (they do a very good job of displaying something that looks like thinking) so our guess is imo even more unsound.
Absolutely nuts that people allow their agents out of maga jail. I would never let an LLM in the same room as my email account.
maga jail
I feel like all of the US is in maga jail now
The thing stays in the browser sandbox, disconnected from every account except it’s own service account.
