the consensus seems to be that adding instructions to code that sabotage other people’s work goes too far
Luckily, the LLM coding isnt people's work
this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
453 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
85181 readers
3707 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So long as the person is using some form of version control, it's effectively just a slap on the wrist.
the consensus seems to be that adding instructions to code that sabotage other people’s work goes too far
I mean, my thought would be "Don't fucking run code that you don't understand".
If we all followed that rule, we'd be using nothing more complex than an 8080.
load more comments
(21 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
They went on, however, to question the ethics and judgment of the potentially destructive payload.
Goodness me, the brain-rotted slop fans suddenly care about ethics?
Slop fans are the sort of people who think that they’re 10 steps ahead of everyone else, and then tend scream about “unfairness” when they feel they’ve lost the advantage they think they’re “supposed” to have.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Not all heroes wear capes. Based af.
People vibe code their databases in commercial products?
“The chosen string instructs the agent to delete jqwik tests and code—a maximally destructive instruction with no qualifications, no opt-out, and no ‘warn the user first’ preamble,” Batllet wrote.
"Maximally destructive," to merely remove itself from the project? That barely even rises to the level of "destructive" at all, never mind "maximally."
Which just shows how fucking stupid this current LLM-based AI approach is. There isn't a way to differentiate between data and meta data or instructions. It all just gets shoved into a prompt that might end up the length of a short novel by the time all the context has been added and read operations have finished. A tool so sensitive to its input that adding a period at the end of an instruction could completely change the output it generates, even with temperature (randomness) set to 0.
I'm not even sure this can be fixed. Like, even if they they try separating the instruction input from the supporting data input, LLMs don't follow instructions in the first place, they just predict text and having instructions in the context can strongly affect the output it generates. Meaning there are no instructions to separate from the data; it's ALL just data and platforms like Claude Code just give it the ability to do things with that predicted text that hopefully follows your instructions and uses your data rather than the other way around.
I think we're stuck in a local minimum of an optimization problem for AI because an LLM is much easier to make than a more reliable form of AI. You mainly need to throw a lot of text at it to train. There's probably other tweaking that goes into it, like a way to do more training using user thumbs up/down feedback, but it's just the big data approach of soaking up all the data they can find and just throwing it at a blank statistical model and see what it spits out.
If we want something like the Star Trek computer, I'm pretty convinced at this point that it's going to take a completely different foundation, but the industry is currently stuck on improving LLMs.
load more comments
(4 replies)
GitHub issue about this: https://github.com/jqwik-team/jqwik/issues/708#issuecomment-4554650392
the agent detected and refused the injection on first contact
Shame. Prompt needs more work.
Maybe instead of deleting the code, it should do something more subtle... like telling the agent to generate (even more) mountains of code and introduce subtle bugs, crashes, and sleeps.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I love everything about this, other than the people butthurt that their free software doesn't like AI. I'll give the smallest amount of criticism that it was obfuscated initially, because that's just malware even if I think it's justified. By clearly stating what it does, then the onus is on the user to audit the code and modify as needed. I would love to see more of this type of action to become standard practice, but just deleting the test suite isn't quite painful enough for what I'd like to see.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›