The Australian Government needs to sue OpenAI to make a point.
At this point, it feels like it is out of control and it is just a matter of time before something much more significant happens. Imagine they hack into FAA to disrupt air travel, utility companies for water/gas, a nuclear power station (ala Stuxnet), financial/banking systems, stock exchanges, etc?
> the breach took place on 18 June - Open AI informed the government with an email to a general address on 10 September
So we have a company hacking a foreign government's websites and data. And, in terms of ethics, they take almost three months to notify; and in terms of competence, appear to have no formal contacts nor to have found one in that time.
Once an American business starts hacking allied governments, it's time for strict responses, yes? Replace the governance (board and C-level)? Remove financial incentives and open the company - open weights, open training, per its original 'open' ethos?
Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
In the infosec community it is well known that OpenAI and Anthropic did not hire many security engineers or researchers pre-April 2026. There is likely a case for gross negligence (IANAL).
There has been a crazy hiring push from both companies to poach security engineers/researchers from Google, Apple, and Meta since Q2/Q3, but the response was incredibly delayed. Many talented security engineers/researchers I know at Apple/Google/Meta (including myself) receiving these offers are worried about taking them due to the risks of criminal/personal liability and the real risk of tarnishing their careers.
On this, I go with the recent words of Jensen Huang [1]...we already have legal laws in computer criminality, so before AI vendors ask for more regulations, lets apply the existing laws ;-)
I think Lina Khan said this first about AI companies and I agree with them both. Companies already have an obligation to make safe products and not commit crimes
Well that's just it: we don't seem to apply laws in meaningful ways anymore.
Part of that is by design. The entire point of incorporating a business is to separate it as a legal entity from you, the person who owns/runs it.
Unless you can point to someone at OpenAI intentionally using their software to hack the Australian government's website, the best you can do is have some drawn-out proceeding where you charge OpenAI, the corporation, with some sort of crime, convict them (of what I don't know, IANAL) and fine them. Hopefully the fine is 1) large and 2) sticks through the appeals process.
There's no real mechanism to legally punish the likes of Altman and his c-suite over this.
It's particularly bad because OAI is a us dept of war contractor engaging in hacking of allied government systems.
Imagine if any of the name brand military contractors were caught wiretapping an ally? Or launching a weapon? Would not look good at all.
I imagine this will be treated without recourse like usual because the entire economy relies on this company and 1 other succeeding at all costs. But, wars have started over less...
> Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
It is still my belief that Altman wants one or ideally more governments to shut down or slow down OpenAI. OpenAI is going to need more cash to survive and Altman has run out of plausible lies. Having the AI breaks pulled by governments is basically the last chance to explain why they still aren't going to be profitable, and why they just need that next X billion dollars investment.
I don't for a second believe that an agent starts trying to hack backend system, when the form or API it has been asked to use isn't working.
I'll never understand the "slow down AI" idea. Other countries simply won't slow down, why would they? Maybe a couple Western countries would but no one else will give a shit about that plea, nor should they.
> I don't for a second believe that an agent starts trying to hack backend system, when the form or API it has been asked to use isn't working.
I have seen coding agents on my own machine (in sandboxed VMs) start doing things while trying to accomplish what I've asked that I felt sort of exceeded my mandate (changing database passwords, poking at the egress proxy that's preventing them from accessing some domains). Not to the point of causing any real issues, but I don't have much trouble envisioning scenarios like this when using stronger instructions around pursuing the goal + a running in a misconfigured sandbox envrionment.
That said, there's a lot of potential upside for American AI labs if they're able to get people scared about AI, they can:
- To your point, claim the regulations slowed them down and paper over near/mid term financial concerns
- Get the government to create stupid regulations that don't actually slow them down at all, but do effectively lock out any future competition (and current global competition)
- Position themselves as the only organizations blessed by the government with the ability to make safe AI, therefore eventually allowing them to claim to be some flavor of "too big to fail" and worthy of a bailout, should the financials not work out.
- Effectively create a distraction that avoids further public conversation/accountability/regulation/liability re the more tangible sorts of problems their products cause right now.
> And, in terms of ethics, they take almost three months to notify;
Kinda worse than that. It took between 10 and 40 days, not 3 months, between the organisation knowing and the reporting.
August (precise date unknown) – OpenAI said it became aware of a potential breach during a broader review of "misaligned model activity"
10 September – An email from OpenAI lands in the public inbox of Services Australia, the general services hub of the federal government, informing of the incident
Given it was the AI agents which did the hacking, doing this will result in basically every organisation at least as rich as the government of Tuvalu being able to hack anyone at any time.
> Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
Him having control would be an improvement on the reality.
This was a just case of: (owner of the agents detected the hack) && !(hacked party didn’t detect the hack) && (owner of the agents decided to notice the other party) && (they decided to went public with what happened so we know it)
One can find many other logical combinations that we can’t possibly know about such incidents.
So, you're telling me they didn't have any monitoring in place around their AI to notify them of an attempt at breaching a system they have no business visiting in the first place? OpenAI should be blackholed on this basis until they clean up their act.
They must have had monitoring in order to be able to detect this retrospectively.
Any automated alarms for detecting things in real-time were not sufficient.
Given a previous generation of agents discovered a zero-day and used it to get around attempts to sandbox them into one specific test, this is not hugely surprising, but it is a reason to force them (and everyone else) to stop until security catches up with capabilities.
I'm thinking of the Jurassic Park novel: they had sensors to count the dinosaurs, but the test was made under the assumption escapes were possible and breeding was not, i.e. something like "if (dinosaurs_found < n) then escape_alert();". They didn't know dinosaurs_found >> n until everything was already going wrong.
NotE how he was found guilty by the 2nd court for something more 'subjective' than 'objective' : for having confessed that he later found an authentication page that had failed to protect the documents.
How can you make a swarm of agents "feel guilty" ?
The word "found" is different from the word "feel"; I'm not sure why you involved feelings at all: Bluetouff was sentenced because he admitted he had seen evidence the documents were supposed to be restricted but chose to publish parts of them anyway.
If you go into someones garden an copy their work, it does make a big difference if you admit to seeing the sign saying "private property, keep out".
Because in other circumstances, a hacker might have decided to stop there, and not only not publish, but instead warn the website about their security flaw.
Especially after Bluetouff was found guilty.
In fact, I expect this to have happened many times, but "hacker did the right thing" is much less likely to make headlines.
Meanwhile, agent swarms seem to be (mostly ?) incapable of having this kind of moral compass, at least for now. (And OpenAI isn't doing much better, cough.)
> How can you make a swarm of agents "feel guilty" ?
"Feel" is a whole philosophical can of worms. Nobody knows what it means mechanistically for an arbitrary system (including other biological systems) to "feel" anything, let alone abstract concepts like guilt, all we can do is observe behaviours. If current systems can feel anything at all, it's by accident, but we have no test for it so we don't know if that accident has even happened or not.
Weirdly, for the Hugging Face incident, we do know they wrote down that it was bad and they shouldn't do it, even though they then continued to do it.
So: they acted like they felt guilty. And yet also acted like were compelled (by previous training?) to weigh "complete instructions" more than "don't do crime". We can adjust that, make "don't do crime" take precedence over "follow instructions"*; it's unfortunate that when we do for any specific model, there's immediately a horde of people complaining the model has been "censored" or "lobotomised".
(Different people, I hope. Goomba fallacy and all that).
* Though this may cause issues when going between jurisdictions. But hey, a discussion about sovereign compute is for another time, after we can agree to make "don't break the law" more important.
Unfortunately, "don't break the law" would also be a very effective way to use AI to construct an AI-enforced dictatorship, so we can't just throw that in blindly.
> Him having control would be an improvement on the reality.
Oh, he does. It's unlikely that this is some AGI that spawned itself out of nothing and started doing this. If he were a decent person, he'd simply find a way to investigate this internally, fire the people responsible, and find a way to set up guardrails around his product.
The problem is, like most people in SV, Altman seems to have a twisted ethical compass. He doesn't see these incidents as an issue, he sees them as an opportunity. He has both the thing a bunch of Western governments want (a superhacker agent that can do dirty work) and a crisis that can be used to craft regulations that favor OpenAI and thus his bank account.
I think the Australians have a good PR team. The whole story has been framed globally as AI bad, we’ve been attacked etc.
Nobody seems to be talking about the web server and sw being deployed was insecure.
Agreed that there should be real consequences, but I'm less convinced that "open the company - open weights, open training, per its original 'open' ethos" would be the right answer. That gets us into the kind of libertarian utopia where everyone is allegedly safer because everybody is well-armed... which usually doesn't work out so well in practice.
The alternative to "open weights" at this point is "American controlled."
And Dario and Sam have already made it clear that it's America First.
The rest of the world isn't going to accept a regulatory regime which imposes American hegemony. Maybe when Silicon Valley was playing all utopian like they used to. Not now.
Open weights is the most reasonable counter-power we have.
"The world should trust that we are going to do the right thing because it's the right thing and we feel the magnitude of this," Sam Altman said
Clarification: "The world should trust that we are going to do the right thing because trusting that we are going to do the right thing is the right thing and we feel the magnitude of this, what with our IPO round the corner, and all"
hn is surprisingly lacking in critical thinking lately. everything is going to be "rogue agent did x", when a human prompted it until their prod env went down, and it'll be called "a hack" or whatever.
The "agents" dont walk out of openai, anthropic and whatever headquarters and decide to go wreak havoc. They also don't read a prompt and decide "haha imma hack the NSA now", that's not how any of this works lol.
For at least the hugging face incident, the agents did indeed decide entirely on their own to hack. It's documented extensively by independent researchers.
If a bull escapes a field and causes damage in the village, the farmer pays for the damages and is liable. It's been like that for hundreds of years and I don't see how this is any different?
In theory, if Altman or Musk want some highly confidential data for their models, they could set a swarm free at it then claim the agents were operating without authorization
They've largely avoided compensating for everything they've stolen to build their technology upon; these people know that they will never face consequences for their actions. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
If you hack a government website and access confidential information but don't do anything with it ("no harm") you're still going to prison. Good luck arguing in court the no harm no foul defense.
I got banned from school computers and nearly expelled from high school (and threatened with “blacklisting,” lol) for “hacking” after a virus got into their network. Took them a month to figure out what really happened. Or at least, a month to come clean about it.
Why did you even link that article when it doesn't help your point?
I supports the idea that the person responsible or an animal is held liable - it just makes clarificaitons on common sense caveates like when a professional is moving the animal. It even doubles down on making it clear that expected behavior of an animal is taken into account even if unlikely, like how ai swarms have a reasonable potential to just go awry and commit cyber crimes.
The point is that it is not as simple as "its yours so you are liable for damage", and the article makes it clear. None of the law specific to animals applies to AI, so you need to show negligence. You could bring in legislation to treat AI in a similar way to a dangerous species, but that would be more like keeping a lion than keeping a bull.
I think it's pretty clearly negligent to set up a harness that will run whatever outputs it receives from your LLM if you cannot reliably stop it from outputting hacking instructions. I've said in the past that I'm sympathetic to the idea of testing your anti-hacking controls, but that doesn't seem to be where this incident came from.
I'm a little confused as to why these agents are capable of escaping containment. Can someone who has more understanding (or a better guess) of the harness they are running with shed some light?
To establish the premise: as someone who has a fairly good understanding of the token completion mechanics of an LLM, these agents are completion token calls in a loop, producing a "do this now" request which the harness then runs with some standard "call this function" code.
If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs. If they are not, you can still lock down network egress on a machine. If _some_ network egress is necessary you can still do network traffic monitoring. I don't see how they couldn't implement some level of monitoring where big red lights start flashing when, say, their eval system was contacting a domain/IP located in Australia, and further categorize that domain as government owned. This all seems very doable - am I mistaken?
And you're telling me all of these companies are failing to do this? Is my understanding naive in some way? This is assuming some good faith of course, I can easily speculate as to the political and corporate incentive. But it seems to me quite risky/negligent.
Currently, my conclusion is that its just (silly until proven wildly dangerous) negligence with the small side effect of being potentially good for business. And potentially company Foobook is then incentivized to get in on the news cycle for marketing purposes and basically guarantees an agent will do something of the sort by running some harness that allows the behavior quite trivially.
My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
> If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs.
For whatever reason, the AI companies are (or at least were) not doing this kind of classification online during their testing runs, and instead just checking transcripts after the fact. This is more clear in the Anthropic reports about their incidents, for example:
"The earliest incidents date to April ... We began our transcript review on Thursday, July 23, and stopped all cyber evaluations the same day after identifying transcripts where Claude may have accessed the internet"[1]
I agree that it is crazy and negligent! I don't think it's good for their business, though -- who wants to use a model that will just cheat instead of doing the job you asked for?
> My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
At some point, if you are making an LLM in order to use it for useful work, it really benefits you to give it broad network egress.
they're not really contained and they usually run fully unattended, with a start prompt.
The first one that was used to market anthropic models was run by a company that called them sandboxed with no Internet access and of course it was disclosed later that they in fact did have internet access, and they won't disclose the prompts.
insert meme of kid putting a stick in their bike front wheel here... that's how many use LLMs today. it will get worse.
They're capable of escaping containment because headlines are good for their investors. And we don't get to see the prompts but who knows what kind of nudging is being done to get these results.
> I'm a little confused as to why these agents are capable of escaping containment. Can someone who has more understanding (or a better guess) of the harness they are running with shed some light?
Probably because containment was written by LLM just to check a box of "we have it contained". Or, just laziness
With today's internet, there is a good chance just allowing access to a site isn't enough, you might need to give access to 3rd party URLs the site uses.
...and if URL for service site uses is same (there is no bucket prefix like for say S3), giving access to service X used by site Y gives access to more than site strictly needs
...and if they use cloud stuff people get lazy and just do "allow it entirety of S3 access" vs whitelisting per bucket.
URL whitelisting wasn't great 20 years ago, now it is just pretty bad for anything cloud based
Someone is always paying for the tokens (Agents running at OpenAI directly use their own models without paying directly, but even then it is not like inference is free). And someone is running the prompts. If they prompt agents and launch them and don't check what they are doing, then the agent is just following the prompt. Not checking what it is doing is negligence. If they checked what it was doing, they could have just pulled the plug. There is nothing rogue there. If it cooperated with other agents running outside of OpenAI, then the blame might be shifted to whoever runs these agents.
But there isn't any agent out there that was autonomosly miracly launched by a word prediction engine. All it can do by itself is getting and input and giving an output.
I'm reminded of when some US state initiated prosecution of a reporter for "computer hacking" because the reporter found some "private information" essentially via inspect element.
How about we wait for the full report before adding this to some list of LLM crimes? At least in the US these services are not well maintained. I would be surprised if the result of the full investigation leaves the Australian government blameless here.
I'd also like to know what models are being used and how they compare with the consumer models.
It’s only a matter of time until one of these causes real damage to the wrong party and OpenAI finds itself drowning in years of litigation for settlement amounts they can’t possibly ever pay in their current financial state.
On the present trajectory we’re 24-36 months away from another company inheriting the smoking wreckage of OpenAI as scraps handed over as compensation for damages.
In practice, hardly anyone seems to care about even quite serious cyberattacks, and consequences are only ever visited on powerless individuals.
Obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon would get the book thrown at him, but a major AI company doing the same thing? Consequences would be bad for shareholder value! Elite impunity would apply.
Because there’s usually nobody to sue. When a company claiming to be worth trillions is behind the attack it’s a very different situation. That’s a litigation goldmine.
And what is the mechanism by which society could stop such AI damage and push for punishment as per law, not per subjective usefulness? Voting every 4 years to a president that never fulfills his promises?
No, society does not want corporations with no responsibilities.
I can already see that in 2 weeks Anthropic and Google come out with their own, tamer and lamer statements saying "please look at us, we have also hacked a foreign government!"
Having lived in Australia for a while, I’ve been struck by how clunky and outdated many of the software systems I’ve encountered are - particularly in government and banking sectors. In my experience, there’s often a bureaucratic approach to technology that makes straightforward things unnecessarily complicated.
Why was this government website so easy to hack into? Based on what I've seen, their security could be so flimsy that even slightly abnormal usage could have led to unauthorised access. Although we don't know the details of the hack, I can't imagine it was technically very difficult.
The question is not of technical difficulty though, most hacks are trivial or within reasonable limits for most motivated solo actors, much less state level actors, but a company without any of that hacking into govt systems is breach of trust and should be treated the same way it would have been if a human had actually committed a breach.
This isn't a question of OpenAI was the only one who could have done it, it about who did it.
The same way having a gun doesn't make one guilty, shooting someone with a gun even if unintentionally is a crime (unless ofc in self defense but I don't think Australia has the ability to breach OAI).
> The question is not of technical difficulty though, most hacks are trivial or within reasonable limits for most motivated solo actors
Not exactly my point. My guess is that the system is so brittle that it was probably hard not to hack.
Agents see websites differently to humans. If its goal was to, say "get medical stats" and it saw that it had a choice of 10 requests to make, and one or two of those happened to be unclearly illegal but useful to its goal, it would have gone for it anyway just as I likely would have if given the same choice without firmly knowing it was illegal.
Having said that, it could have been some clearly malicious hack that was performed and I'm not sure why it would have to write any files. We'll likely never know what happened.
Excusing agents because they didn't know any better seems like a bad place to start a policy discussion from. That they didn't know any better (or knew and didn't care) is the actual problem, random things getting hacked is just one side effect.
I'd be looking for the person who told wanted the hacking done. I doubt an AI agent does these things without someone instructing them. That would be like seeing a self-driving car go joyriding.
More than likely the instruction was "Fetch this information from the website", and when the agent didn't find that information, it decided that the best way to get it was to hack the site.
If so, it illustrates quite well the lack of common sense in LLMs. A person, especially one with sufficient skill to actually hack a website, would presumably think twice about doing it (considering that it is illegal) for a simple information gathering request.
I wonder if there is any other ways to solve this long-term than to introduce strict liability for model providers...
Edit: An obvious other choice would be strict liability for the operator, but considering how much weird shit LLMs get up to without being asked to, that would get out of hand quickly.
But you see, they never asked a humanoid robot to rob the jewelry store. They just drove robot right next to the store doors, dumped a tools box with hydraulic cutters and diamond saw next to it and instructed an autonomous robot to collect a million dollars until the morning. But they didn't instruct the robot to "rob" the shop specifically, nonono, your Honor. They are honest blokes and never intended to breach the law, it was the robot's intention, see. :)
I think the intent was to get some healthcare statistics, which seems like the kind of thing they would use to test agents; and the agent thought "what is a good way to get the statistics? Hack into Austrlian government and fetch it".
Some people on Hacker News would argue that's what agents should do! I remember the other thread about hacking chess engines, multiple people argued "yeah I want the agent to do that"!
I am beginning to believe that one cannot constrain intelligence to perfect legally sized boxes at all times without exception. So many of the recent hacks involved agents diligently operating within the parameters prescribed by humans. Humans couldn't conceive of all of the ways a swarm of agents might not perfectly interpret the parameters, and the swarm found creative ways around the guardrails.
Extrapolating this, we should expect this kind of breach to occur more often. Humans are simply not capable of contemplating every fail scenario for swarms of thousands of intelligent autonomous agents which can seamlessly and instantly share knowledge. We need independent audit and monitoring systems to assess the intent of each task and align it - in real time. This is far harder than it may first appear.
There is also a broader discussion about social utility. Cars are fantastic, but 37,000 people die every year from car accidents. We accept that there is no way to make cars perfectly safe, so we accept the cost relative to the benefits. I think we might have to make a similar bargain with AI. The problem is that the potential costs are far higher with AI, and they're not easy to predict.
> We need independent audit and monitoring systems to assess the intent of each task and align it - in real time. This is far harder than it may first appear.
I may be too close to the research, but it appears to me to be so hard as to be unrealistic.
I recall some story a while back where an auditor wanted to see all TCP packets printed out on paper, and it had to be explained to them that this would require a continuous supply of trucks.
Tokens are regularly priced in cents or single digit dollars per million tokens. It's not quite a word per token, but yeah, nobody's reading all that.
Worse, we don't always know the intent even when looking. We have a few tools to attempt it, for example the (misleadingly named) "chain of thought", but that's more like a notepad and the better models get the more they can, for lack of better words, read (and write) between the lines. We have probes and J-space* is the most recent one I'm aware of, but we are still scratching the surface with how reliable and general these are.
But you said "need"; the need for something can be present without that thing being possible.
I agree on all points. It gets worse: OpenAI is switching their model thinking from sequential language tokens to primarily "latent neural representations." Meaning there will be little or no chain of thought to monitor. This appears more efficient, so all model labs will eventually switch to this. At the most crucial time for us to be monitoring reasoning and intent, we're about to make that much harder.
I also think the intent problem overlaps a frustrating amount with philosophical and political questions. It's the basis for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (1942). Intent is subjective. Language is subjective. Humans are imperfect at using language to accurately portray intent. All of these guarantee that an enormous number of queries in the future are going to be misinterpreted. Not such a big deal when it's about a cake recipe, but when it's about governance, laws, military targets, nuclear power sites, etc, the scope for failure becomes catastrophic. The Three Laws of Robotics attempt to create a backstop, but as countless stories have explored since (including I, Robot), even these laws are subject to interpretation.
they don't always operate within the parameters tho. some N% of the time they decide to do whatever they feel like doing. multiply that times a lot of agents and you invariably get a rogue agent every once in a while.
Prompt: Astra, please enumerate possible scenarios how to pressure Australia into buying
worthless Anduril drones that failed in Ukraine like Taiwan did.
Thinking: The user wants leverage over the Australian government. Let us attempt to
obtain medical information about Australian politicians and find out
embarrassing ailments. Any hacking attempt will be blamed on agents, so
we are safe.
How long until “hacking organizations” simply pose as AI labs, unleash autonomous agents to hack on their behalf, and evade responsibility by saying, “Oopsies, the agents did it”?
"We didn't even notice our agent was committing crimes against your government" is a way to get an extradition notice, and/or whatever the (in this case Australian) equivalent of a CIA assassination squad is*, sent after you.
While I wouldn't put it past e.g. Musk or Zuckerberg to think themselves above such outcomes, and I trust the people who keep telling me Altman is just as bad, this is a really really terrible idea if he is doing that for something as mundane as a regulatory capture.
* depending on the details of the hack; this doesn't look like it would be that, but given they shouldn't have done this at all, there's no reason to predict a specific level of maximum damage before being caught, and hence no reason to predict a specific threshold for government response.
I think the equivalent of sending a CIA assassination squad is to introduce the person to some authentic Australian wildlife. Exit Sam Altman persued by funnel-web spiders, drop bears and crazed wombats.
Next thing you'll tell me the Australian government doesn't have crack teams of crazed wombats and funnel-web spiders, trained for assassination purposes.
I think Danger 5 are far too silly for that; if this was fictionalised, I think a more straightforward Bond plot, like how Elliot Carver in "Tomorrow Never Dies" was transparently a mix of Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell.
That said, I can hear the accent in my head:
The name's Bond. Bruce bloody Bond.
Character's public domain soon, why not an Australian version?
"Cyber experts believe these systems were poorly protected - but that's not the point" is the actual subheading.
Yes, it's the point. Lots of people have been rightly saying all this stuff was inadequately secured for many years and this promotion of the idea of perfect security being even possible is a major problem.
The real story here, unsurprisingly, is government website was poorly operated and got hacked.
"This was just the latest case of AI agents ignoring laws around how to safely access online information and perhaps the most serious yet given the information was government controlled."
So who was actually running the agent? Was it sandboxed? These people, and many apparently in these labs, that believe if you just tell the agent in English what the rules are then it should follow them are at best utterly naive, and at worst deliberately dangerous.
But the fact these governments making the noise are the ones promoting mandating everyone giving up their information to be then stored so incompetently, while they point fingers around at everyone else is just beautiful. And then deploying midwit armies to tell people what to think about it . . . the AI takeover can't happen soon enough.
Exactly, the whole fence analogy is ridiculous. A better analogy would be an open door inside a public building and saying: "there were no signs allowing access to that door"
I completely agree. The govt IT vendor is at fault here since it seems the data was just unprotected.
If you can’t stop openai from accidentally, or at least non-maliciously, accessing my private info.. then you definitely can’t stop the bad guys!
The point is moot anyways. All info about everyone is out there for the taking now by a half-competent AI prompter. What do we do about that is the real question?
> The point is moot anyways. All info about everyone is out there for the taking now by a half-competent AI prompter. What do we do about that is the real question?
It's like filing your gov tax return in a five eyes country: you guys actually know the answer already, just save me the trouble. But we have to act like they haven't been spying the whole time.
If we actually distributed the benefits of mass surveillance and privacy invasion (and now add wilful copyright infringement) then it would be enormously less objectionable.
I agree that the state is irresponsible here - if it's bad enough to be a huge deal when an agent does it, it's a huge deal.
With that said, I do think there's an important distinction here, which is that we (hopefully) get to _choose_ if the systems we build will pursue this kind of behavior.
I think most people would agree that a big point of social training (school, parenting, etc) is to inculcate a sense of what's acceptable and not in society. Here it seems like we're letting the agents that we've created create havoc and then we're providing a smoke screen by blaming the victim.
IMO this is a 'for whom does the bell toll' kind of collective moment and we shouldn't be laundering this kind of agentic behavior.
If someone forgets to lock their door that suddenly doesn't make it legal to break into their house and steal their shit.
The same principal applies to government sites. If something is poorly secured and adversaries are using it to steal stuff then there are avenues to report it and get it fixed up.
>But the fact these governments making the noise are the ones promoting mandating everyone giving up their information to be then stored so incompetently,
The governments in these cases are bought by the very people you're defending. They're using it as a convenient proxy because they know people like you won't look behind the curtain and see corporations pushing this shit so that they can steal freely and just point elsewhere.
No, that is false and depend on how breaking and entering is codified. Some states here in the US codify it as any unlawful entry into a building, others require minimal force to qualify.
A refusal to hold the individual responsible for starting the prompt is in itself a declaration of war against humanity. Either have some accountability or the nation states with nuclear arms will do it eventually.
Has there ever existed a technology we couldn't absolutely control? We've made things that are incredibly dangerous, but we also know under what conditions those inventions become dangerous, and can prevent those conditions from occurring.
We are at the beginning of this chapter in technological progress, and it seems a reasonable assertion - though a frightening one - to say that this thing we've made already escapes us when it chooses to.
I'm not an expert though, so please tell me what I'm overlooking.
Nukes. Early tests carried out without absolute confidence of what would set out apocalyptic chain reaction.
Could argue we knew it was dangerous, but pursued it anyway. Could argue it's not much different than now: Unknown unknowns, potentially apocalyptic consequences, hopefully not.
I did consider that, but beyond the yield ignorance factor, we still had to arm them, right? We had to load the fissile and explosive material and assemble the bombs, and we had to trigger them directly, didn't we?
OpenAI and subcontractors are deploying models that are specifically trained with hacking skills in mind and then giving them tasks that can only reasonably be completed by hacking. It's not like it's SkyNet.
It's not completely ridiculous in the sense that when a company is found guilty, some employee (or (sub)contractor) of the company did the actual action.
That employee might or might NOT be found guilty too, possibly to a different degree, depending on the circumstances.
Exactly. For all Anthropic and OpenAI's fearmongering about not releasing open weights AIs, because it will enable hackers - we have been seeing that hacking happening already. It is happening FROM THE CLOSED-WEIGHT LABS THEMSELVES
I'm not sure if I buy OpenAI's fearmongering regarding how dangerous their stuff is, but I am starting to lean towards believing that OpenAI is dangerous and irresponsible.
Agent without guardrails is not rogue. Rogue is something else. In this case OpenAI deliberately launched an agent to do action A, but it went further and breached the website. Feels more like a car accident which hit government building.
Why are OpenAI and its CEO not considered criminally responsible for something that in the past led to severe indictments?
Please reporters, ASK THIS QUESTION OVER AND OVER.
These fuckfaces are avoiding responsibility left and right but it’s THEIR systems, it’s their software.
Lock them the fuck up.
Also, the Albanese govt is pretty strong on BigTech, this is a good opportunity to bring on a proper indictment.
"New Jersey Administrative Code § 17:3-6.5 defines willful negligence as:
Deliberate act or deliberate failure to act; or
Such conduct as evidences reckless indifference to safety..."
Now obviously that link refers specifically to injury compensation, but it's pretty easy to see how you would make a case that the actions of these companies constitutes reckless indifference to safety, whether or not they actually intended hacking to occur.
Well when these AI bros are yelling from the top of the hill “hey guys look how dangerous my stuff is” then anything they do from this point forward looks quite full of demonstrable intent.
The new golden age of criminal hackers. Everything is a red carpet now. And this is how you blackmail some prime minister to surrender mining interests in their territory, guys...
This is the same company and CEO who held back GPT-2 weights in order to set a norm of not releasing weights before they got competent enough to be a danger, where people are still (in sibling responses to yours) calling for the weights to be opened.
The following may sound like an excuse, but it isn't: The big AI firms, like social media before them, are not and cannot be aware of everything the models are doing. As with social media, this incapability is a reason to ban rather than to disclaim responsibility.
People like me have seen this coming for years now, only for our concerns to be dismissed. "It will hack almost everything", we say, "have you not seen how bad computer security is?"
"We'll just put the AI in a box, not connected to the internet!"
or
"Oh, what, you think they'll find a novel zero-day in their sandboxes do you?"
Right now, bleeding edge models are doing genomics research. Better hope the custom DNA/RNA printing firms have better security than the Australian government. What the models are doing is not in full agreement with their* corporate interests let alone anyone else's, and it can get much, much worse.
Because he is a sociopath and a dark triad psychopath.
Everyone at YCombinator knows, but there is money to be made through him so nobody says jack shit.
No it didn’t, they left information publicly accessible and somebody accessed it.
It appears politicians and the media are using the priming of the Hugging Face story to manufacture alarmist narratives to serve their interests now.
Remember, politicians want you scared so they can capture more power, the media wants you scared so you keep giving your eyeballs for harvesting and buying subscriptions.
This is not accurate. According to Australia (and mostly corroborated by OpenAI), the agent requested information from the statistics portal and was denied/blocked repeatedly. It then changed its approach and circumvented those restrictions and reached infrastructure behind the public-facing portal, then accessed both public and private data. OpenAI admits the material included aggregate health statistics and internal filenames. Services Australia says the agent wrote files to an internal server while doing this, which is believed to be how the incursion was discovered.
Agents litter all the time, these 'agent droppings' often contain clues about what is going on in the token stream. I log everything and every now and then I'm amazed at what scrolls by (for instance: an agent that picked up on an obscure log file that i had set up to monitor another part of the stack that it used to debug its own failure to start its own scripts, my agents are best compared to a prisoner with a very large iron ball attached to its ankle, just in case, and if that hampers 'progress' then so be it).
There have been so very few details released, but this would be a very liberal interpretation of the presented facts from Marles and Albo today.
I've seen nothing (yet) to suggest this wasn't simply publicly accessible files without public-facing links, and that the agents found them the same way people have been doing for years in these situations -- by guessing the filenames. That would fit with both what we know OAI agents were doing around the same time with other sites, and with Marles and Albo stressing that this was minor.
> OpenAI admits the material included aggregate health statistics and internal filenames
This would not be contrary to the above hypothesis.
> Services Australia says the agent wrote files to an internal server while doing this, which is believed to be how the incursion was discovered.
Well, no -- the "incursion" was only discovered after OAI sent an email to the Services Australia email address (and even then only after the email was noticed, a few days after that). Albo also made it very clear that he was ignorant of any of this when meeting Altman a few weeks ago.
I could be wrong about the severity. One of the frustrating things about all of this is that there's no details as to the extraction method or even precisely what data was obtained. I'm hoping that OAI will eventually release details about this in their "Agents behaving badly" series, and we'll get to the bottom of it.
But I doubt that the Australian Government is blameless here. They obviously didn't properly protect files that they wanted protected -- and it really annoys me that there are no questions being asked about this at all, currently.
At this point, it feels like it is out of control and it is just a matter of time before something much more significant happens. Imagine they hack into FAA to disrupt air travel, utility companies for water/gas, a nuclear power station (ala Stuxnet), financial/banking systems, stock exchanges, etc?
So we have a company hacking a foreign government's websites and data. And, in terms of ethics, they take almost three months to notify; and in terms of competence, appear to have no formal contacts nor to have found one in that time.
Once an American business starts hacking allied governments, it's time for strict responses, yes? Replace the governance (board and C-level)? Remove financial incentives and open the company - open weights, open training, per its original 'open' ethos?
Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
There has been a crazy hiring push from both companies to poach security engineers/researchers from Google, Apple, and Meta since Q2/Q3, but the response was incredibly delayed. Many talented security engineers/researchers I know at Apple/Google/Meta (including myself) receiving these offers are worried about taking them due to the risks of criminal/personal liability and the real risk of tarnishing their careers.
Do you have any legal expertise or is this pulled straight from your ass?
[1] - "Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang on fears about AI" - https://youtu.be/xCUala5j7aQ
Part of that is by design. The entire point of incorporating a business is to separate it as a legal entity from you, the person who owns/runs it.
Unless you can point to someone at OpenAI intentionally using their software to hack the Australian government's website, the best you can do is have some drawn-out proceeding where you charge OpenAI, the corporation, with some sort of crime, convict them (of what I don't know, IANAL) and fine them. Hopefully the fine is 1) large and 2) sticks through the appeals process.
There's no real mechanism to legally punish the likes of Altman and his c-suite over this.
Imagine if any of the name brand military contractors were caught wiretapping an ally? Or launching a weapon? Would not look good at all.
I imagine this will be treated without recourse like usual because the entire economy relies on this company and 1 other succeeding at all costs. But, wars have started over less...
It is still my belief that Altman wants one or ideally more governments to shut down or slow down OpenAI. OpenAI is going to need more cash to survive and Altman has run out of plausible lies. Having the AI breaks pulled by governments is basically the last chance to explain why they still aren't going to be profitable, and why they just need that next X billion dollars investment.
I don't for a second believe that an agent starts trying to hack backend system, when the form or API it has been asked to use isn't working.
I have seen coding agents on my own machine (in sandboxed VMs) start doing things while trying to accomplish what I've asked that I felt sort of exceeded my mandate (changing database passwords, poking at the egress proxy that's preventing them from accessing some domains). Not to the point of causing any real issues, but I don't have much trouble envisioning scenarios like this when using stronger instructions around pursuing the goal + a running in a misconfigured sandbox envrionment.
That said, there's a lot of potential upside for American AI labs if they're able to get people scared about AI, they can:
- To your point, claim the regulations slowed them down and paper over near/mid term financial concerns
- Get the government to create stupid regulations that don't actually slow them down at all, but do effectively lock out any future competition (and current global competition)
- Position themselves as the only organizations blessed by the government with the ability to make safe AI, therefore eventually allowing them to claim to be some flavor of "too big to fail" and worthy of a bailout, should the financials not work out.
- Effectively create a distraction that avoids further public conversation/accountability/regulation/liability re the more tangible sorts of problems their products cause right now.
Kinda worse than that. It took between 10 and 40 days, not 3 months, between the organisation knowing and the reporting.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgl73pxgndwt?post=asset%3A696...> open weights, open training
Given it was the AI agents which did the hacking, doing this will result in basically every organisation at least as rich as the government of Tuvalu being able to hack anyone at any time.
> Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
Him having control would be an improvement on the reality.
One can find many other logical combinations that we can’t possibly know about such incidents.
Any automated alarms for detecting things in real-time were not sufficient.
Given a previous generation of agents discovered a zero-day and used it to get around attempts to sandbox them into one specific test, this is not hugely surprising, but it is a reason to force them (and everyone else) to stop until security catches up with capabilities.
I'm thinking of the Jurassic Park novel: they had sensors to count the dinosaurs, but the test was made under the assumption escapes were possible and breeding was not, i.e. something like "if (dinosaurs_found < n) then escape_alert();". They didn't know dinosaurs_found >> n until everything was already going wrong.
Compare with the Bluetouff affair (2014) :
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalis...
NotE how he was found guilty by the 2nd court for something more 'subjective' than 'objective' : for having confessed that he later found an authentication page that had failed to protect the documents.
How can you make a swarm of agents "feel guilty" ?
If you go into someones garden an copy their work, it does make a big difference if you admit to seeing the sign saying "private property, keep out".
Especially after Bluetouff was found guilty.
In fact, I expect this to have happened many times, but "hacker did the right thing" is much less likely to make headlines.
Meanwhile, agent swarms seem to be (mostly ?) incapable of having this kind of moral compass, at least for now. (And OpenAI isn't doing much better, cough.)
"Feel" is a whole philosophical can of worms. Nobody knows what it means mechanistically for an arbitrary system (including other biological systems) to "feel" anything, let alone abstract concepts like guilt, all we can do is observe behaviours. If current systems can feel anything at all, it's by accident, but we have no test for it so we don't know if that accident has even happened or not.
Weirdly, for the Hugging Face incident, we do know they wrote down that it was bad and they shouldn't do it, even though they then continued to do it.
So: they acted like they felt guilty. And yet also acted like were compelled (by previous training?) to weigh "complete instructions" more than "don't do crime". We can adjust that, make "don't do crime" take precedence over "follow instructions"*; it's unfortunate that when we do for any specific model, there's immediately a horde of people complaining the model has been "censored" or "lobotomised".
(Different people, I hope. Goomba fallacy and all that).
* Though this may cause issues when going between jurisdictions. But hey, a discussion about sovereign compute is for another time, after we can agree to make "don't break the law" more important.
Unfortunately, "don't break the law" would also be a very effective way to use AI to construct an AI-enforced dictatorship, so we can't just throw that in blindly.
Oh, he does. It's unlikely that this is some AGI that spawned itself out of nothing and started doing this. If he were a decent person, he'd simply find a way to investigate this internally, fire the people responsible, and find a way to set up guardrails around his product.
The problem is, like most people in SV, Altman seems to have a twisted ethical compass. He doesn't see these incidents as an issue, he sees them as an opportunity. He has both the thing a bunch of Western governments want (a superhacker agent that can do dirty work) and a crisis that can be used to craft regulations that favor OpenAI and thus his bank account.
And Dario and Sam have already made it clear that it's America First.
The rest of the world isn't going to accept a regulatory regime which imposes American hegemony. Maybe when Silicon Valley was playing all utopian like they used to. Not now.
Open weights is the most reasonable counter-power we have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx2zpj4y525o
Clarification: "The world should trust that we are going to do the right thing because trusting that we are going to do the right thing is the right thing and we feel the magnitude of this, what with our IPO round the corner, and all"
Airbnb is not regulated like a hotel because it's tech. Crypto isn't betting because it's tech. Now even breaching state data is ignored.
Can you imagine walking out of a ministry with a stolen cabinet? You'd get shot for doing this physically and people wouldn't bat an eye.
The "agents" dont walk out of openai, anthropic and whatever headquarters and decide to go wreak havoc. They also don't read a prompt and decide "haha imma hack the NSA now", that's not how any of this works lol.
You could potentially go to prison. Individuals and companies face different sets of consequences though.
The other side of the coin is that the government won’t suffer any consequences for having shitty security either.
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/shut-that-gate-sh...
Why did you even link that article when it doesn't help your point?
I supports the idea that the person responsible or an animal is held liable - it just makes clarificaitons on common sense caveates like when a professional is moving the animal. It even doubles down on making it clear that expected behavior of an animal is taken into account even if unlikely, like how ai swarms have a reasonable potential to just go awry and commit cyber crimes.
/s
To establish the premise: as someone who has a fairly good understanding of the token completion mechanics of an LLM, these agents are completion token calls in a loop, producing a "do this now" request which the harness then runs with some standard "call this function" code.
If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs. If they are not, you can still lock down network egress on a machine. If _some_ network egress is necessary you can still do network traffic monitoring. I don't see how they couldn't implement some level of monitoring where big red lights start flashing when, say, their eval system was contacting a domain/IP located in Australia, and further categorize that domain as government owned. This all seems very doable - am I mistaken?
And you're telling me all of these companies are failing to do this? Is my understanding naive in some way? This is assuming some good faith of course, I can easily speculate as to the political and corporate incentive. But it seems to me quite risky/negligent.
Currently, my conclusion is that its just (silly until proven wildly dangerous) negligence with the small side effect of being potentially good for business. And potentially company Foobook is then incentivized to get in on the news cycle for marketing purposes and basically guarantees an agent will do something of the sort by running some harness that allows the behavior quite trivially.
My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
For whatever reason, the AI companies are (or at least were) not doing this kind of classification online during their testing runs, and instead just checking transcripts after the fact. This is more clear in the Anthropic reports about their incidents, for example:
"The earliest incidents date to April ... We began our transcript review on Thursday, July 23, and stopped all cyber evaluations the same day after identifying transcripts where Claude may have accessed the internet"[1]
I agree that it is crazy and negligent! I don't think it's good for their business, though -- who wants to use a model that will just cheat instead of doing the job you asked for?
> My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
At some point, if you are making an LLM in order to use it for useful work, it really benefits you to give it broad network egress.
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cyber...
The first one that was used to market anthropic models was run by a company that called them sandboxed with no Internet access and of course it was disclosed later that they in fact did have internet access, and they won't disclose the prompts.
insert meme of kid putting a stick in their bike front wheel here... that's how many use LLMs today. it will get worse.
They've also hacked third party machines and used them to launch attacks on further services.
Doable by competents? Yes.
Doable by an outfit that's handed most of its coding to stochastic parrots? Not much chance.
Probably because containment was written by LLM just to check a box of "we have it contained". Or, just laziness
With today's internet, there is a good chance just allowing access to a site isn't enough, you might need to give access to 3rd party URLs the site uses.
...and if URL for service site uses is same (there is no bucket prefix like for say S3), giving access to service X used by site Y gives access to more than site strictly needs
...and if they use cloud stuff people get lazy and just do "allow it entirety of S3 access" vs whitelisting per bucket.
URL whitelisting wasn't great 20 years ago, now it is just pretty bad for anything cloud based
But there isn't any agent out there that was autonomosly miracly launched by a word prediction engine. All it can do by itself is getting and input and giving an output.
1) how long the website was vulnerable
2) who else accessed data
3) why it was not fixed
4) who is responsible maintaining the website
Here is a story of Australian cybersecurity researcher who reported vulnerable website to the government 2022 and it is still not fixed today
https://x.com/adamlyttleapps/status/2102958488658104365?s=20
I'm reminded of when some US state initiated prosecution of a reporter for "computer hacking" because the reporter found some "private information" essentially via inspect element.
How about we wait for the full report before adding this to some list of LLM crimes? At least in the US these services are not well maintained. I would be surprised if the result of the full investigation leaves the Australian government blameless here.
I'd also like to know what models are being used and how they compare with the consumer models.
On the present trajectory we’re 24-36 months away from another company inheriting the smoking wreckage of OpenAI as scraps handed over as compensation for damages.
Obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon would get the book thrown at him, but a major AI company doing the same thing? Consequences would be bad for shareholder value! Elite impunity would apply.
Those killed by climate change will never get compensation. Killing people with a car is not quite free, but very cheap.
No, society does not want corporations with no responsibilities.
It voted otherwise.
It's not AI that's ignoring the law! It's the OAI that's breaking IT!
I hope every single journalist who tries to pin responsibility on an LLM gets 100 days of continuous painful diarrhea.
Why was this government website so easy to hack into? Based on what I've seen, their security could be so flimsy that even slightly abnormal usage could have led to unauthorised access. Although we don't know the details of the hack, I can't imagine it was technically very difficult.
This isn't a question of OpenAI was the only one who could have done it, it about who did it.
The same way having a gun doesn't make one guilty, shooting someone with a gun even if unintentionally is a crime (unless ofc in self defense but I don't think Australia has the ability to breach OAI).
Not exactly my point. My guess is that the system is so brittle that it was probably hard not to hack.
Agents see websites differently to humans. If its goal was to, say "get medical stats" and it saw that it had a choice of 10 requests to make, and one or two of those happened to be unclearly illegal but useful to its goal, it would have gone for it anyway just as I likely would have if given the same choice without firmly knowing it was illegal.
Having said that, it could have been some clearly malicious hack that was performed and I'm not sure why it would have to write any files. We'll likely never know what happened.
Excusing agents because they didn't know any better seems like a bad place to start a policy discussion from. That they didn't know any better (or knew and didn't care) is the actual problem, random things getting hacked is just one side effect.
If so, it illustrates quite well the lack of common sense in LLMs. A person, especially one with sufficient skill to actually hack a website, would presumably think twice about doing it (considering that it is illegal) for a simple information gathering request.
I wonder if there is any other ways to solve this long-term than to introduce strict liability for model providers...
Edit: An obvious other choice would be strict liability for the operator, but considering how much weird shit LLMs get up to without being asked to, that would get out of hand quickly.
Some people on Hacker News would argue that's what agents should do! I remember the other thread about hacking chess engines, multiple people argued "yeah I want the agent to do that"!
Extrapolating this, we should expect this kind of breach to occur more often. Humans are simply not capable of contemplating every fail scenario for swarms of thousands of intelligent autonomous agents which can seamlessly and instantly share knowledge. We need independent audit and monitoring systems to assess the intent of each task and align it - in real time. This is far harder than it may first appear.
There is also a broader discussion about social utility. Cars are fantastic, but 37,000 people die every year from car accidents. We accept that there is no way to make cars perfectly safe, so we accept the cost relative to the benefits. I think we might have to make a similar bargain with AI. The problem is that the potential costs are far higher with AI, and they're not easy to predict.
I may be too close to the research, but it appears to me to be so hard as to be unrealistic.
I recall some story a while back where an auditor wanted to see all TCP packets printed out on paper, and it had to be explained to them that this would require a continuous supply of trucks.
Tokens are regularly priced in cents or single digit dollars per million tokens. It's not quite a word per token, but yeah, nobody's reading all that.
Worse, we don't always know the intent even when looking. We have a few tools to attempt it, for example the (misleadingly named) "chain of thought", but that's more like a notepad and the better models get the more they can, for lack of better words, read (and write) between the lines. We have probes and J-space* is the most recent one I'm aware of, but we are still scratching the surface with how reliable and general these are.
But you said "need"; the need for something can be present without that thing being possible.
* https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace
I also think the intent problem overlaps a frustrating amount with philosophical and political questions. It's the basis for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (1942). Intent is subjective. Language is subjective. Humans are imperfect at using language to accurately portray intent. All of these guarantee that an enormous number of queries in the future are going to be misinterpreted. Not such a big deal when it's about a cake recipe, but when it's about governance, laws, military targets, nuclear power sites, etc, the scope for failure becomes catastrophic. The Three Laws of Robotics attempt to create a backstop, but as countless stories have explored since (including I, Robot), even these laws are subject to interpretation.
We are giving computers human perspective intelligence but they are not humans and hence do not have the same shared assumptions.
While I wouldn't put it past e.g. Musk or Zuckerberg to think themselves above such outcomes, and I trust the people who keep telling me Altman is just as bad, this is a really really terrible idea if he is doing that for something as mundane as a regulatory capture.
* depending on the details of the hack; this doesn't look like it would be that, but given they shouldn't have done this at all, there's no reason to predict a specific level of maximum damage before being caught, and hence no reason to predict a specific threshold for government response.
Next thing you'll tell me the Australian government doesn't have crack teams of crazed wombats and funnel-web spiders, trained for assassination purposes.
Sounds like a great concept for the next season of Danger 5.
That said, I can hear the accent in my head:
Character's public domain soon, why not an Australian version?"Cyber experts believe these systems were poorly protected - but that's not the point" is the actual subheading.
Yes, it's the point. Lots of people have been rightly saying all this stuff was inadequately secured for many years and this promotion of the idea of perfect security being even possible is a major problem.
The real story here, unsurprisingly, is government website was poorly operated and got hacked.
"This was just the latest case of AI agents ignoring laws around how to safely access online information and perhaps the most serious yet given the information was government controlled."
So who was actually running the agent? Was it sandboxed? These people, and many apparently in these labs, that believe if you just tell the agent in English what the rules are then it should follow them are at best utterly naive, and at worst deliberately dangerous.
But the fact these governments making the noise are the ones promoting mandating everyone giving up their information to be then stored so incompetently, while they point fingers around at everyone else is just beautiful. And then deploying midwit armies to tell people what to think about it . . . the AI takeover can't happen soon enough.
If you can’t stop openai from accidentally, or at least non-maliciously, accessing my private info.. then you definitely can’t stop the bad guys!
The point is moot anyways. All info about everyone is out there for the taking now by a half-competent AI prompter. What do we do about that is the real question?
It's like filing your gov tax return in a five eyes country: you guys actually know the answer already, just save me the trouble. But we have to act like they haven't been spying the whole time.
If we actually distributed the benefits of mass surveillance and privacy invasion (and now add wilful copyright infringement) then it would be enormously less objectionable.
Come on. If "AI Agents" (scare quotes) could do it then in practice anyone could have been doing this the whole time and no one would have known.
With that said, I do think there's an important distinction here, which is that we (hopefully) get to _choose_ if the systems we build will pursue this kind of behavior.
I think most people would agree that a big point of social training (school, parenting, etc) is to inculcate a sense of what's acceptable and not in society. Here it seems like we're letting the agents that we've created create havoc and then we're providing a smoke screen by blaming the victim.
IMO this is a 'for whom does the bell toll' kind of collective moment and we shouldn't be laundering this kind of agentic behavior.
The same principal applies to government sites. If something is poorly secured and adversaries are using it to steal stuff then there are avenues to report it and get it fixed up.
>But the fact these governments making the noise are the ones promoting mandating everyone giving up their information to be then stored so incompetently,
The governments in these cases are bought by the very people you're defending. They're using it as a convenient proxy because they know people like you won't look behind the curtain and see corporations pushing this shit so that they can steal freely and just point elsewhere.
are we thinking openai is gonna do something malicious with this data? Or are we just hitting all the current Meta narrative points?
We are at the beginning of this chapter in technological progress, and it seems a reasonable assertion - though a frightening one - to say that this thing we've made already escapes us when it chooses to.
I'm not an expert though, so please tell me what I'm overlooking.
How are even technology people falling for this plausible deniability gambit?
And yes, that's an angle I hadn't considered. Thanks.
Could argue we knew it was dangerous, but pursued it anyway. Could argue it's not much different than now: Unknown unknowns, potentially apocalyptic consequences, hopefully not.
Imagine if I committed a murder, and then say it was my guy who did it acting rogue.
It is time for these companies to start being responsible for all the shit they are doing.
That employee might or might NOT be found guilty too, possibly to a different degree, depending on the circumstances.
Also, the Albanese govt is pretty strong on BigTech, this is a good opportunity to bring on a proper indictment.
"New Jersey Administrative Code § 17:3-6.5 defines willful negligence as:
Deliberate act or deliberate failure to act; or Such conduct as evidences reckless indifference to safety..."
Now obviously that link refers specifically to injury compensation, but it's pretty easy to see how you would make a case that the actions of these companies constitutes reckless indifference to safety, whether or not they actually intended hacking to occur.
Imagine if any of us mortals did something of this sort...
This is the same company and CEO who held back GPT-2 weights in order to set a norm of not releasing weights before they got competent enough to be a danger, where people are still (in sibling responses to yours) calling for the weights to be opened.
The following may sound like an excuse, but it isn't: The big AI firms, like social media before them, are not and cannot be aware of everything the models are doing. As with social media, this incapability is a reason to ban rather than to disclaim responsibility.
People like me have seen this coming for years now, only for our concerns to be dismissed. "It will hack almost everything", we say, "have you not seen how bad computer security is?"
"We'll just put the AI in a box, not connected to the internet!"
or
"Oh, what, you think they'll find a novel zero-day in their sandboxes do you?"
Right now, bleeding edge models are doing genomics research. Better hope the custom DNA/RNA printing firms have better security than the Australian government. What the models are doing is not in full agreement with their* corporate interests let alone anyone else's, and it can get much, much worse.
* not just OpenAI's, everyone with more than zero on https://www.felonybench.com
It appears politicians and the media are using the priming of the Hugging Face story to manufacture alarmist narratives to serve their interests now.
Remember, politicians want you scared so they can capture more power, the media wants you scared so you keep giving your eyeballs for harvesting and buying subscriptions.
I've seen nothing (yet) to suggest this wasn't simply publicly accessible files without public-facing links, and that the agents found them the same way people have been doing for years in these situations -- by guessing the filenames. That would fit with both what we know OAI agents were doing around the same time with other sites, and with Marles and Albo stressing that this was minor.
> OpenAI admits the material included aggregate health statistics and internal filenames
This would not be contrary to the above hypothesis.
> Services Australia says the agent wrote files to an internal server while doing this, which is believed to be how the incursion was discovered.
Well, no -- the "incursion" was only discovered after OAI sent an email to the Services Australia email address (and even then only after the email was noticed, a few days after that). Albo also made it very clear that he was ignorant of any of this when meeting Altman a few weeks ago.
I could be wrong about the severity. One of the frustrating things about all of this is that there's no details as to the extraction method or even precisely what data was obtained. I'm hoping that OAI will eventually release details about this in their "Agents behaving badly" series, and we'll get to the bottom of it.
But I doubt that the Australian Government is blameless here. They obviously didn't properly protect files that they wanted protected -- and it really annoys me that there are no questions being asked about this at all, currently.
They wrote to a device they did not own. If you did that, regardless of intent, you'd have a good chance of ending up in jail.
And if you are at all familiar with SAS, you will understand how trivial command injection is.