Ok from my understanding of this “hacking” is it more than prompt injections in text files?
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
124 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
86957 readers
2622 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
Please someone explain why if I hack a company I go to jail, but if an AI company does it they get investments
There's no way possible an AI can hack anyone unless the people running it intended for that to occur or were negligent. Anyone with questions about that should install a copy of LM Studio or Ollama on their PC, download a model, and see how easy it is for the AI to hack someone. It's impossible. Only human intervention can make it possible.
These stories seem like propaganda intended to get the US government to block usage of open weight models, since they pose an existential threat to the marketshare of expensive closed AI services these companies offer. Open weight models exist in all sizes, from very rudimentary small models to massive near-frontier quality models, and anyone with the tech know-how and a computer able to run them can do so without paying the AI companies or involving the AI companies in any way. It's like Linux for AI.
It comparable to if Microsoft declared Linux a hacker OS that hackers can use to take down networks. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are the first resort, not last resort, of big companies who know they can't possibly compete with a better alternative.
These motherfuckers should be sitting in jail cells right now.
Not enough, needs to be bullets in all their heads. These people are the villans and should be treated as such.
Uh yeah shuffles papers our uhh Ai did that as well!
"My Ai just hacked the entire US financial sector then left without a trace, prove it didn't!"
This is like kids saying Superman could beat Goku in middleschool.
he could, tho
he could, tho
Yeah, the first time. After Goku trains in the 100x gravity room in the heaven spaceship, I seriously doubt it.
ok goku, you beat me... I do have a finite power limit
"ha!"
but I don't!!
That’s what I haven’t understood about these debates. One of them supposedly has an infinite power source? That means they would win, de facto, no?
Anything finite is a drop in an endless ocean to anything infinite.
Prime is a different beast. He's still silver-bronze age Superboy, with every bit of rediculous strength the plots of the 70's had to offer. The dude can punch holes in reality and collide planets.
Goku though just needs a training arc to beat anybody.
Saitama would be a good one-one for SBP.
I see. So we’re taking different archetypes of the same character throughout their story progression, and we compare those directly?
I think I blend all the archetypes to just “Superman” and “Goku” in my head. So it made less sense.
'Infinite strength' has weird limits in fiction, but can usually be troped in three big, easy ways. The first is to threaten something that character cares deeply about. He may be invincible, but his world is not.
The other is to have them at limited potentials of that power, or limit them by their incompetence or inexperience. This is the Matthew Malloy or Scarlet Witch situation, they had/have power but are sometimes written with zero control of that power.
The last and easiest, is to use abilities that do not depend on strength. Strength is always troped by magic and telepathic users of at least some skill. Can't kill what you're fighting? Teleport it to hell! Trick its mind into fighting someone else. Trick it into thinking there's nothing wrong, or Charles Xavier's method, 'you sleep now'.
Though there are sometimes limits to that. See - The Hulk.
"He's too angry! His mind is madness!"
No idea why they never think of just levitating him. He can't smash if he can't get to the ground.
MY AI is more dangerous and out of control than your AI.
Honestly, I don't understand why they opt for these kind of publicity stunts.
Imagine having a "state of the art" language model that does not follow instructions in enterprise use? Big nope. Even small open weight Chinese language models can follow instructions and not attempt to penetrate through the security of random public services..
We all know that these things are intentionally guided to do pen testing to multiple services, and whatever goes through is posted on the news.. But why not do something more creative?
"We" being the technologically inclined. The majority of the population see these headlines and think of it as something closer to a Gibson novel. These stunts work. It's why people think Elon is Tony Stark.
It's a TIGER, so what if you only have the tail?, you have the tail of a TIGER
This is what happens when advertisers get to rule.
Just one more quarter bro, I promise. We have this thing doing all kinds of cool stuff ... like it totally hacked a website. We'll be making money with this soon by ~2026~ I mean 2028 for sure
Meta AI is CEO of AI!
This might be the most pathetic thing he's done yet
Am I just stupid for not believing that any of the models actually did any of that on their own? I feel like the companies behind them start claiming crazy shit like this every time people start questioning "AI" more and/or losing interest. Isn't that how OpenAI dropped Sora amidst the dwindling hype to keep the investors hooked? Now it's back to scary stories about "AI" being so good and advanced that it's about to hack everything and what, actually think for itself?
There is no X big enough for me to press to doubt this enough.
It's not clear what you mean when you say "on their own". It wasn't like the LLM was idle and randomly decided to start hacking. At least for the OpenAI one, it was being tested and given a task, and it determined that part of accomplishing that task was hacking another server. It was supposed to be isolated in a secure "sandbox" not connected to the internet, but found a vulnerability in some software running in the sandbox and broke out.
Edit: I should add that there are credible accusations that these companies are intentionally making it possible to break out of their test environments for publicity.
What you're describing is exactly what I'm wondering. Maybe I'm just not too deep into the topic, but it seems so arbitrary to me that they went with the whole isolation thing in the first place for no reason that I can see, other than the "oh no, it's hacking stuff!" narrative being pre-planned and orchestrated for.
In other words, I am siding with the accusations of this whole wave of "AI" suddenly hacking into stuff, with different models from different companies wondrously doing the same thing one after another, being a publicity stunt that one company started and others, as they do, copying just to stay relevant.
Although I feel like maybe I'm going Chuck McGill here because I am very biased.
The models are tested, among other things, on their ability to turn vulnerabilities into exploits. The OpenAI scenario was exactly this.
It is a very wise practice to test these things in isolation, especially when you're telling it to hack.
I'm not completely sold on it being a publicity stunt, personally. The law was broken by these models, and I don't believe these companies want to start people and politicians asking the question about who is culpable when an AI breaks the law.
Sort of. What they want is no responsibility “wow we didn’t tell it to do that explicitly!” And to convince the public and government officials that “AI is actually really dangerous, so please ban all the foreign competitors on grounds of national security (totally unrelated to our potential lack of earnings and their ability to offer 98% the product for 1% the cost).”
So still most likely publicity stunt. A reproducible one, done only by the largest domestic ones precisely because they are not worried about the question of who is culpable if a law is broken, because they didn’t tell it explicitly to do it and also they still have a couple piles of circular cash they can use on bribes, which may be their only path to keeping the grift train going. They’re in no way in danger of being held accountable here, they do worse things everyday, and their concern is making money, full stop. They will lie cheat and steal their way through circular finance deals, bribes, extortions, anticompetitive behavior, marketing stunts, propaganda, and backroom deals as much as they can to accomplish that goal. When you understand their actions through that lens, well, things like this make sense.
No you are not.
Per the article, all three LLMs ran the same test by the same third party company.
Zuckerberg: “my AI is cool, too…”
Yes, a real "me too, me too"
Reads like an onion headline
The only thing it tells me is that they do not have their cybersecurity in order.
Therefore wouldn't want to use a product of those companies.
I kinda love this because it shows both how uninventive and useless meta is, but it also clarifies just how much the earlier situations were also just publicity stunts.
Sigh
If you had read the situation, you would find that the information news outlet reported this first, then the media talked about it then Meta admit this in news statements. (They didn't even release a blog/press release).
While I don't rule out that it's a publicity stunt, I think it's very unlikely. Otherwise I would call Meta terrible at marketing because they are not loud about it at all.
In my opinion, OpenAI accident has triggered a wave of scans among AI companies to discover any problems before they get hold liable for damages by the hacked company and to solve them internally.
That's how I read the situation as of 7th of August. My opinion might change, if any new info came out that seem sus.
This entire storyline just have so much "my dad is stronger than your dad" type energy...