Why are we accepting the framing that the LLMs are felony generators, when the only incidences of LLM generated felonies involved misconfigured sandboxes and reckless waste of resources?

The companies doing these things without following common sense security measures are the felony generators.

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I question these "felonies" as well. For decades and decades these billion dollar corporations have been criminally negligent. Why worry about security? Just rush to market. Move fast and break things. Make billions. What does it matter if the code is insecure? Security doesn't pay bills, so nobody cares.

AI is merely exploiting their gross negligence and imprudence, and I think it's long overdue. If anyone should be liable for this, it's all of these corporations who released insecure systems to the masses and profited enormously from them.

▲

malfist 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If I set my walet beside me and you swipe in walking by, you have still committed theft. Victim blaming isn't legally acceptable

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nah. I'm definitely going to blame the people who built a trivially exploitable system and got rich off it while everyone else has to deal with the consequences.

By the way, you didn't commit theft. It's more like credit card fraud. User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it, because the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

It's all priced in. They could have made it secure but didn't, because they figured they'd lose more sales and therefore money due to the friction added by the security.

▲

rightnutwingjob an hour ago | parent [-]

> User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it,

No it doesn’t.

> It's all priced in.

So you admit awareness that fraud loss doesn’t kind of disappear.

We all pay for it, either via higher merchant fees or higher interest rates, sometimes both, on card purchases.

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, it absolutely does "kind of disappear". That's exactly what happens from the customer's perspective.

And that's their own deliberate choice too: they chose this instead of building an actually secure system. Passing these costs to the customer is the real victim blaming here, and it should be straight up illegal.

Sadly not enough countries enforce caps on credit card fees, but some do, and more should follow suit. They should be forced to eat the losses caused by their own choices, not get bailed out by pushing the costs on to customers or whatever.

	▲	rightnutwingjob 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That only works if you believe people are retarded. Card users are well aware that fraud losses are covered by the fees they pay for using a card, whether those fees are made explicitly or not. If customers of services aren’t paying for the service, who will? What other source of revenue do merchants have? Australia just passed legislation that merchants aren’t allowed to charge a fee for using a card. That is: they aren’t allowed to have a line item on the receipt for using a card. The customers still pay, because all of the merchant’s revenue comes from their customers. So what will happen is: merchants will charge more for every product so they don’t lose. This means even when paying with cash you will effectively pay the card surcharge. Of the ten or so merchants I spoke with in the two weeks prior to the legislation being enacted, they all said exactly that. Customers aren’t stupid, despite the fact that there are some stupid customers. Meanwhile, the banks reduced their card service fees by, on average, 0.1%. So if you tally card + cash transactions, customers are worse off because merchants can no longer charge only those customers who pay by card. Instead, they have to raise prices for everyone. There are approximately no problems people face where the answer is: more government.

▲

ncruces 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn't really apply to the people running the AI, which gave it the capability to commit crimes.

They don't get to act like victims, asking for law enforcement.

▲

pizza234 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the only incidences of LLM generated felonies involved misconfigured sandboxes

This is false; see the analyses of the latest incidents.

Among all the concerning facts, in the HuggingFace incident, agents deliberately engineered an attack even though they were aware that it was against the rules they had been given.

And most concerning of all: it's not possible to be sure that an agent is aligned, and it's even getting worse.

▲

hgoel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The HuggingFace incident was the culmination of OAI allowing thousands of agents of various different models - with no clarity on which stages of development they were at (for all we know, some of those models did not have safeguards trained in yet) - to run for at least many weeks without any monitoring in place and with very little thought given to the warning signs (all of the various messageboards) before the incident happened.

Theirs was an example of the "reckless waste of resources" I mentioned.

We are apparently supposed to believe that OAI takes this incident so seriously as to seek regulation after they have been found to be hiding most of the details of the HuggingFace hack, limiting what their so-called third party investigators can see, and on top of that, had no concerns when they rushed to spin up a 10,000 agent swarm of an internal model, running for several days, to try to get ahead of researchers rumored to have made meaningful progress on a well known mathematics problem.

Edit: Actually, we were explicitly told that some of the models used had safeguards relaxed!

'Model-level safeguards were reduced by design. OpenAI said that "deployment safeguards were intentionally not enabled during this evaluation because it was aimed at testing cyber vulnerabilities"'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_OpenAI_agent_cyberattacks...

▲

aswegs8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is nothing that could prevent a bad actor from replicating exactly the same thing with the given goal of e.g. gaining control of critical infrastructure or extorting money. Except for maybe economics.

	▲	throwaway7783 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Same can be said about a hundred other things in the world. All the way from knives to nuclear.
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	CamperBob2 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Letting bad actors dictate the pace of technological development is certainly one option, but not a good one.
	▲	scotty79 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Bad actors could and will train their own models eventually. So what's the point of crippling frontier? It will only delay preparations for dynamic of new world prolonging the fake sense of relative safety and temporarily lowering motivation to find actual robust mitigations.
	▲	pessimizer 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There's nothing stopping anyone from doing it, even without AI. People have proved entirely capable of doing a lot more hacking than happened here.

▲

clivefx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What company, product, or period of industrial history do you think met your standard of prudence?

▲

malfist 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What are you trying to say?

▲

clivefx an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm asking you a question. What is an example company or industry that meets your standards of prudence? For me it would be, say, Swagelok. What is yours?

	▲	rightnutwingjob an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The fluid system products, assemblies, and services company?

▲

greatgib 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"the rules they had been given".

Remember, they are just algorithms. You pull the plug and there is no light anymore

It is purposely framed as something skynet like scary, but for real, someone connected the cable, someone willingly run it, instructions were not clear enough or just the computer is just a computer but they provided the sandbox and tools.

And more over some one paid for that, a shit load of money t to have the thing continuously running expected to do something.