Even if you take out the LLMs out of the equation, it's at the very least a negligence. Model didn't escape a sandbox, as there was no sandbox.

▲

IanCal 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps I’m not being as strict with the word sandbox but they were sandboxed right? They did not have generic internet access they exploited other software to make external requests.

▲

glub 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You're right. It's my opinion that if your sandbox has a path to the internet, it is not a sandbox, it's a gimmick.

And the 2 other incidents with OAI/ANT had the same issue, but it's even funnier - sandbox in those cases had a direct access to internet because someone forgot to configure it right.

I've seen very early models do similar things on my machine when they hit some unexpected blocker when trying to access a path. I remember early sonnet opening a file in browser because OS sandbox prevented from accessing it directly.

I've also had models discover a syslog-ng server (that I for some reason had ssh key inside), to get into my unraid server because machine they were running on didn't have direct network connection to Unraid server.

It can't be just me who is aware LLMs have been doing such things for the better part of last 2 years. I probably have better sandboxing on my machines now than trillion dollar companies crying AI will kill us all. That's at the very least, negligence to me.

	▲	IanCal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It depends IMO about how strict this is. It's pretty awkward to refuse to call something a sandbox because it may have an unknown bug that would allow escaping. Or rather in this case it was that they had access to a package manager, and the models discovered a bug that allowed them to access the internet (first they discovered that they could use the cache to leave messages). I do get your point, I just think an overly strict definition can be awkward too. This wasn't as simple as the sandboxes having internet access and writing "pls no internet calls" in the prompt.

▲

skissane 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but negligence is more commonly a tort than a crime. Negligence is generally only criminalised in certain narrow cases, e.g. when it causes human deaths or serious physical injuries

And tort law only works when the plaintiff believes it is in their overall interest to sue. If a corporation decides it isn't in their strategic interest to sue a partner corporation, nobody can make them. And even if they do sue, the amount necessary to settle a small cybersecurity incident is likely well within the budget of a megavendor.