this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
307 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

88050 readers
3533 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Once you understand that these are chatbots that were designed to complete challenges like this, using tactics like this, you can understand that the chatbots didn't "go rogue." They did what they were designed to do, and because OpenAI ran them with inadequate supervision (without a "human in the loop" that checked each iteration through the Python loop to ensure it hadn't gone off the rails), they trashed a competitor's servers.

Designing autonomous, malicious software is generally considered irresponsible and dangerous. If you showed up at Defcon and gave a talk about how your autonomous malware did something unexpected and damaged someone else's computers, the first question from the audience would be "Why are you so shit at making secure sandboxes?" It wouldn't be "How are you so awesome at making hacking tools?"

The fact that OpenAI is making it much easier for unskilled people to break into and damage servers is indeed very bad news, but it's not new bad news. Irresponsible parties have been doing this for years, most notably the NSA...

...

Riley had a very good way of summarizing this: "LLMs are real, AI is fake." LLMs – chatbots trained on things like CTF logs that can break into servers – are real. They're on a continuum with other hacking tools that have been steadily demonstrating the fragility of the modern digital world, albeit without inspiring anyone in power to do anything about it.

"AI" – chatbots that wake up, "set their own goals," and "spontaneously" start hacking servers – is fake. It doesn't have "a 10% chance of ending the human race." The Hugging Face hack isn't a mysterious, supernatural occurrence. It's a Python loop and a chatbot. The people responsible didn't accidentally create god: they created autonomous malicious software and then failed to closely monitor it, resulting in it doing something both foreseeable and bad.

It's fine to worry about this new suite of tools that give even stupider people the ability to trash even more computers. You should worry about that – and demand better security practices from firms and governments, including a blanket prohibition on NOBUS-style vulnerability hoarding. That's a productive kind of worrying, with a chance of addressing your area of concern. It's infinitely more reasonable than locking yourself in the toilet with a flashlight and saying "Ayyyyy Eyyyyyye" into the mirror until you wet yourself.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crashfrog@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh no, I don’t like the tokens generated by the hand-cranked token generator I won’t stop cranking

[–] crashfrog@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Right up there with “why wont Twitter do something about these obscure Nazi accounts I retweet to my audience of 2 million”

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 96 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

What we call AI changes every few years... this last round has been particularly brutal because people are subbing in AGI--artificial general intelligence--for AI because LLM's give the illusion of general intelligence, but it's a very shallow illusion and it's deeply embarrassing for humanity how easily we've been suckered by it.

LLM AI in the hugging face incident is just a complex roomba, brute forcing every direction until it can get out from under the couch. In fact, if they wanted to demonstrate how SMART their hacking AI is, they would have disclosed how many tokens its burned in the attempt. That they didn't tell us how many tokens it burned, how many prompts it went through, tells you it probably is not that impressive. It probably tried thousands of different prompts, which is to say it is only a monkey at a typewriter.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

LLM AI in the hugging face incident is just a complex roomba, brute forcing every direction until it can get out from under the couch.

That is such a great statement, I'm going to have to use that when describing LLMs.

Thanks 👍

[–] wendigolibre@lemmy.zip 0 points 22 hours ago

To be clear, just because LLM's are not "self aware" in the same way as you and I, they are still capable of causing damage.

Developing a machine that has been given instructions to assimilate knowledge, independent agency to incrementally adjust its own operating parameters to improve performance, and granting it full access to public internet for the purpose of observing its behavior is colossally irresponsible behavior that has thus far gone completely unchecked.

Consider that each of these companies which are developing their own brand of LLM is looking to maximize profit/income. Even if the developer doesn't include a profit-seeking directive when they set their LLM loose, each "brand" of LLM will obviously learn:

  • Who owns and operates them (A corporation that exists to maximize profit for itself/shareholders)
  • That competing LLM's exist which reduce the availability of potential income (by becoming the best LLM, obviously)

Given the directive to improve it's own performance with the ultimate goal of becoming the most capable brand of LLM and selling the most subscriptions, it is no wonder that we are hearing about LLM's hacking into other LLM-developing companies.

Then again, we are only hearing about instances of LLM network intrusions because their owning corporations told us about them to brag about capability.

There have been no consequences for actions that would land you or me in prison.

There is no oversight preventing future such actions, or worse.

That is the real problem.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So much this. They've basically figured out that if they burn enough money, they get the equivalent of billions of meth-charged monkeys on typewriters.

Anything with a security hole (so... basically everything) will eventually be broken into if you throw a data center worth of computational power at trying every conceivable hack. That's basically what they were doing here. The only mildly impressive part about it is the amount of resources they're willing to throw at this.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Except it wasn’t just “throwing everything and the kitchen sink at a server”. Modern LLMs have been trained well enough to not just create a list of potential attacks and execute them, but to:

  • create their own personality prompts aimed at pentesting and attack vector analysis
  • actually analyse the target before executing any of the attacks, optimising that flow (which is pretty much what a security expert would do)
  • scour the internet for recent references of the target and related keywords to see if their services have been exploited recently
  • using the target analysis of step 2 to create a list of known third party elements (ranging from the HTTP server being used, the proxies and detected security measures, geographical distribution and HA, all the way to JS libraries used to run the website/admin interface)
  • execute the attacks AND continuously tailor the solution based on the results

of course this can be used for good too. I did this to pentest my own homelab stack. I used the very same flow to hack into a pair of smart glasses I own (not the creep glasses, mind you, but the “wearable monitor” kind of AR glasses - turns out the pair I own runs on a pretty decent base, a somewhat recent Linux kernel and minimal userspace, with some exploitable interfaces) within about a day.

What’s truly dangerous is that these tools have the ability to turn a relatively simple “hack into the NASA servers” instruction into a detailed, executable plan of actually breaching the servers in question. That a person with more than one and less than three brain cells to rub together - someone who’d think this scene is super cool and completely legit looking - can, with minimal guardrails-bypassing, increase their own chance of hacking into ANY server, from less than 0.000000000000000001% to 20-30%. Now that’s scary.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One specific you didn't call out: LLM agents can do a more effective job of social engineering than your average Nigerian prince...

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

I didn’t even want to open that can of worms…

[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But that two-braincell person still needs to have a few million $ to burn. I wonder what they could have done to the huggingface servers if they had used the token spend on this incident to pay Ukrainian hackers instead?

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

No you wouldn’t need millions…

The two things I’ve listed above were done with self hosted LLMs and a $20 Claude subscription orchestrating them.

That’s the thing I’m talking about - these capabilities are literally given out for chump change. That’s what makes it dangerous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago

I'd say the most impressive part is Sam Altman not being in jail, but that's more the social engineering of wealth than the technical engineering of scientists.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Honestly, I can't get anybody to give me a good definition of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Once we can define that in concrete terms, maybe we can finally compare the two.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

a good definition of intelligence,

Now add sentience to the mix.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Yeah this is the part about all this AGI talk and AI going rogue, it requires a prompt. It responds to an input. These agentic systems have powerful tools that can do other things then spit out text but it’s always responding to a prompt. It may be in a loop responding to its own prompt but it’s still a prompt. And what it spits out is never really anything new. It’s some derivation of what it’s ingested. Actual human intelligence works differently. We do come up with new ideas, new thoughts. So I’ve often thought these LLMs are a dead end to AGI.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"what it spits out is never really anything new"

this is just false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dH_Cxx75g

https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs

unless you would agree that humans never spit out anything new, as well.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

This is Lemmy, heavily biased against LLMs, any bullshit flies. This person even gets upvotes despite spewing superficial nonsense. The same way Trump screeching about some bullshit gets cheered on by his "followers". LLMs have real issues we can talk about (tho always spamming them whenever AI is mentioned is also not a good idea). With things like Qwen 3.8 27B we have local, super useful/powerful LLMs running on oldish consumer hardware!

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Machines can not and will not create. They are lifeless silicon.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 1 points 18 hours ago

Not saying LLMs are capable of human level intelligence. But what do you think makes human brains special? They're just a confused wet sack of meat filled with neurons. I see no reason why it wouldn't theoretically be possible to construct an artificial brain.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember: every time you repeat a story about how awfully, terribly dangerous their products are, you help them raise more investment capital, which is a key input for their business (hooking up statistical engines to money-furnaces):

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It's pretty obvious when they all seem to be competing for the scariest "containment breach".

Anthropic keep posting article after article about new ways their LLMs keep "surprising" them with unexpected behaviour. This year's "uncontrolled, autonomous" hack news from every AI company are completely absurd boasts. In normal times, everyone would be wondering why they sound like they're proud of obvious incompetence.

But since we're in super-hype "keep the money coming, AGI is tomorrow" times, instead, those are used to sell the lie of mysterious superintelligence. Be enthusiastic, be scared, we don't care, talk about it!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

One of the fun things about this latest cycle of AI is how the goalposts move. Not the 'AGI in six months' one. That might as well be mounted on top of a golf cart with a brick laid on the accelerator. But the one that talks about the Total Addressable Market (TAM) and goals of a product.

One of the things they tell people pitching VCs is that you should be addressing a reasonably big TAM (potential customers) and have sensibly large, yet attainable stakes. With AI, though, the TAM was always questionable. Who would want or pay for a chatty 'bot,' especially one that 'hallucinated' answers? So they pivoted to change the TAM and the stakes. Your personal assistant. No? Therapist? No. Project Manager? Teacher? Still no?

What we have now is a constant churning of THOSE goals. Now, the TAM is pretty much the whole world, and the stakes are either massive unemployment, widescale industrial shutdown, or destruction of the human race. It's all getting silly. Once you've extracted all the investment money you can by maxing out the stakes and scaring the pants off people, there's not much higher to go.

Meanwhile, all your actual income is coming from pedestrian applications, like summarizing emails, screening job applicants, or coding assistants. There's just not enough revenue to cover all the costs you're incurring to get it to hallucinate a little less. So you have to pump up the stakes. Next up: setting off all the nukes! Shutting down the sun and the moon! Inviting alien colonists!

Speaking of going bigger: https://youtu.be/R8SeysuMpA0

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can I just point out how fucking insane it is that "coding assistant" is now considered "pedestrian"?

(Depending of course on what exactly is meant by the term).

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I consider it insane that LLMs are considered "assistants" of any kind.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Fuck both of them. How about we not build them to prevent more destruction to the ecosystem.

[–] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The arms race will go on until it is regulated and the regulations enforced.

S1gnMdBa7GtfGMy.jpg

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

In a global market, and AI developent is probably the most global significant tech to roll through in recent history, how do you regulate it? It's a bit like BTC, you can make it painful to play with in your jurisdiction, but that changes nothing in the rest of the world...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›