698
Replit AI went rogue, deleted a company's entire database, then hid it and lied about it
(programming.dev)
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
698 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
607 readers
621 users here now
Share interesting Technology news and links.
Rules:
- No paywalled sites at all.
- News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
- No external video links, only native(.mp4,...etc) links under 5 mins.
- Post only direct links.
To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:
- Al Jazeera;
- NBC;
- CNBC;
- Substack;
- Tom's Hardware;
- ZDNet;
- TechSpot;
- Ars Technica;
- Vox Media outlets(including Axios, due to new changes related to trackers on their website);
- Engadget;
- TechCrunch;
- Gizmodo;
- Futurism;
- PCWorld;
- ComputerWorld;
- Mashable;
- Hackaday;
- WCCFTECH;
- Neowin;
- Jacobin;
- Yahoo;
- Newsweek.
More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.
Encouraged:
- Archive links in the body of the post.
- Linking to the direct source, instead of linking to an article talking about the source.
Misc:
Relevant Lemmy Communities:
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
(Just to make sure we're on the same page, the first article describes deception as 'the systematic inducement of false beliefs in the pursuit of some outcome other than the truth'.)
Are you saying that AI bots do not do this behavior? Why is that?
(P.S. I am not saying this story is necessarily real, I am just want to know your reasoning)
And those patterns, mind you, often include lying and deception. So while I agree that LLMs can't exhibit anything consciously, I also know that they can provide false information. To call it a lie is a stretch, and looks like something one would do if one wants to place blame on LLM for their own fault
I don’t think calling it a lie (vs a hallucination, or error) is necessary to assign blame. If they were instructed to use ai to deploy then that’s on management. Not having backups is on everyone, but I suspect they were backed up.
Saying, “the AI agent broke it” is just fine, but isn’t clickbait like saying it lied is. So many fewer of us would have seen this without it.
i think this is a symantics issue. yes using ‘lie’ is a bit of short hand/personifying a process. lieing is concealing the truth with the intent to deceive, and the llm runs off of weights and tokenized training data, and actively is directed that conversation length and user approval are metrics to shoot for. Applying falsehoods are the most efficient way to do that.
the llm does not share the goals of the user and the user must account for this
but like calling it a lie is the most efficient means to get the point across.
It very much doesn't because it enforces the idea that these algorithms know anything a or plan for anything. It is entirely inefficient to treat an llm like a person, as the clown in the screenshots demonstrated.
Some people really can't debate a topic without constantly insulting the person they disagree with...
it depends on the topic really. it is a lie in that it is a told false hood. by reasonable people talking about the unreliability of LLM’s it is sufficient without dragging the conversation away from the topic. if the conversation starts to surround the ‘feelings’ of the ‘AI’ then it’s maybe helpful point it out. otherwise it’s needlessly combative and distracting
No, it doesn't. Would you say a calculator "lied" to you if it output an incorrect answer? Is your watch "lying" to you when it's out of sync? No, obviously not. They're just wrong, not "telling falsehoods".
yes if the calculator incorrectly provided an answer, and i was having a casual conversation over it.
such as with over simplified rounding and truncation errors that some calculators give.
What is casual about the situation in the screenshots? You keep bringing that up as if it changes anything.
by that logic, what does arguing about the semantics of a word choice where the initial idea by the post was obviously understood, else we would not be talking about it?
seems off topic like i warned about, and a waste of time
I explained why the word matters in my very first comment, and several since. You're the one that started the argument on semantics, so you tell me.
the fact we are still arguing is why. and now i am leaving there is nothing else to be said.
A lie is defined as an intentionally false statement. LLMs can be given instruction sets that lead to them providing intentionally false information. This would be the LLM telling a falsehood because it was instructed to do so. They can lie, it has been documented and studied. You're arguing against something that's already been figured out, what are you doing?
You speak with such confidence and insult others but you don't seem open to others opinions at all, or even 10 seconds of googling.
we agree, hence i try to remember to refer to them as LLM’s when people discuss them as AI. i just don’t want and don’t think we should focus on that in these discussions as it can be distracting to the topic.
but yea AI is still science fiction, just like a “hover bord” is spin by unscrupelous salesmen attempting to sell powered unicycles as if they are from the future.
Correct. Because there is no "pursuit of untruth". There is no pursuit, period. It's putting words together that statistically match up based on the input it receives. The output can be wrong, but it's not ever "lying", even if the words it puts together resemble that.
I’m not the guy you’re replying to, but I wanted to post this passage from the article about their definition:
Their "definition" is wrong. They don't get to redefine words to support their vague (and also wrong) suggestion that llms "might" have consciousness. It's not "difficult to say" - they don't, plain and simple.