> users take unreasonable precautions

It doesn't help that so far the communicators have used the wrong analogy. Most people writing on this topic use "injection" a la SQL injection to describe these things. I think a more apt comparison would be phishing attacks.

Imagine spawning a grandma to fix your files, and then read the e-mails and sort them by category. You might end up with a few payments to a nigerian prince, because he sounded so sweet.

▲

uhfraid 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Command/“prompt” injection is correct terminology and what they’re typically mapped to in the CVE

E.g. CVE-2026-22708

	▲	NitpickLawyer 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps I worded that poorly. I agree that technically this is an injection. What I don't think is accurate is to then compare it to sql injection and how we fixed that. Because in SQL world we had ways to separate control channels from data channels. In LLMs we don't. Until we do, I think it's better to think of the aftermath as phishing, and communicate that as the threat model. I guess what I'm saying is "we can't use the sql analogy until there's a architectural change in how LLMs work". With LLMs, as soon as "external" data hits your context window, all bets are off. There are people in this thread adamant that "we have the tools to fix this". I don't think that we do, while keeping them useful (i.e. dynamically processing external data).