• [object Object]@lemmy.caEnglish
    7 hours

    Why would the LLM tool have access to send recovery emails to non account verified emails at all?

    That’s insane.

    • guitarfosec@infosec.pubEnglish
      3 hours

      Because one of the biggest companies on the planet that has issues with account takeovers clearly has no internal red team working on this stuff.

      • tomiant@piefed.socialEnglish
        1 hour

        Let’s mix these chemicals and see what happens. No funds for lab coats or protective glasses. We got a bottom line to feed.

    • hightrix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3 hours

      Hold on, do you expect Facebook to pay a human to deal with the inventory? Come on now.

    • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7 hours

      Because AI bros are incredibly deluded about both the capability of AI, and by extension their own capabilities using AI>

    • ohshit604@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7 hours

      should’ve asked it to delete the database instead, why else would it have that level of permissions.

  • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    9 hours

    I remember playing with the Gandalf security AI showcase/game and every 30 or so prompts, it would spit out massive amounts of raw training data or dev directives. AI just isn’t there yet. If you’re using it for sensitive topics, I’m losing respect for you. There is no gray area. You are an idiot if you give your AI this level of access.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7 hours

      Uh oh! Sounds like somebody could use a few more giant lines of cocaaaaiiiiiine!!

    • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9 hours

      No, stop talking about all of this, its perfect. They’re so deep they don’t even give a shit about the worst type of security vector imaginable.

      • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish
        3 hours

        Can’t wait for the inevitable Armageddon caused by giving AI full control of all US nukes. I give 8 months tops.

      • Archer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7 hours

        Someone is about to launch their AI insider threat DLP and make a fortune

      • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8 hours

        Yes, yet. At a certain point, it will be at or above the capacity of an average call center employee. Not now. Not soon. If we aren’t all killed by drones, climate shifts, or radiation, maybe 20 years.

            • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              7 hours

              Well given that’s the only possible relevant “AI” you could possibly be talking about, as we don’t even have an inkling about true general AI and have no technologies that even look like they could produce anything close to it, forgive me for making the obvious assumption.

              No, in 20 years no version of any technology currently in use will be replacing human employees or would have the capability of doing so. AI Bros jumped the gun and tried starting to do that with current tech, and now most companies are desperately hoping just throwing more compute power at the dead ends will make it magically work before the money runs out.

              • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                3 hours

                No, in 20 years no version of any technology currently in use will be replacing human employees or would have the capability of doing so

                That’s a pretty bold statement when technology advances have replaced or downsized the need for human roles in the past.

                The printing press, cars, typewriters, computers, emails and the internet, spreadsheet software and data visualization software, cloud infrastructure…

                Think about what technology looked like 20 years ago. Same with the job market. The same jobs are not available to the same extent at the same equivalent rates of pay. There are new jobs that are created, for sure. But saying that technology won’t advance in 20 years enough to reduce the need for human employees is short-sighted in my opinion.

                …of course, that’s assuming that you meant “technology won’t be replacing some human employees” and not “all” employees, lol

                • badgermurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2 hours

                  First of all, 20 years ago, many aspects of computer technology were better. Sure, CPUs are faster, traces are smaller, monitors are clearer. But every core Internet age technology is practically identical to what it was in 1990, even. There is no email 2.0, still no easy large file sharing, and on on. Things that need improvement cannot be improved anymore because monopolies dont improve things, they entrap. Everything’s proprietary inside a walled garden and not interoperable. We’d probably be close to electronic telepathy by now if not for Big Tech.

                  And secondly, the previous poster said nothing anything like the current technologies will be AI. The LLMs we have now are a combination of plausible sentence assemblers, code auto-completers, travesty generators, and “Actually Indians”. That is not a stepping stone to a thinking machine, it is as he said, a sidetrack that leads to a dead end.

                • The_Decryptor@aussie.zoneEnglish
                  2 hours

                  Think about what technology looked like 20 years ago.

                  20 years ago I had a 64-bit PC with a dual-core processor and 8GB of RAM, now I have a 64-bit PC with a 6-core processor and 32GB of RAM.

                  Sure, it’s an improvement but consider the same situation from 1986 where it would have been a 386 (The first 32bit x86 chip!) with 1MB of RAM. The rate of computer technology improvements is slowing down, not increasing.

                  Edit: Thinking about it, 20 years ago I had a GeForce 7600 GT, which I replaced with a 570, that with a 980, and finally with a 3070. So 4 GPUs across 20 years, and they all used the same bus on the motherboard.

                • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  7 hours

                  All LLMs are neural nets, not all neural nets are llms, but they’re similar enough to have the same general flaws. 'Neural Networks" are misnomers, at best; especially given the designs were first being implemented before we had any real idea how neurons actually worked. It’s why Brain Organoid interfaces still completely destroy entire simulated interfaces in pretty much any task we’ve managed to actually train them on.

                  It’s also how we know we’re not close to the software or hardware capability to actually do anything complex. The best that we’ve been able to do is simulate a fly’s brain with a super computer.

                • M0oP0o@mander.xyzEnglish
                  7 hours

                  Yes. That does seem to be the case based on the evidence before us.

  • Dultas@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5 hours

    Wtf is up with the text justification on that second image. Who uses right justification on left to right text?

    *also why are the sender and receiver reversed.

  • |IlI|lIIl|IlIll|Il|IllI|@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8 hours

    LLMs are literally just designed to say yes - either through gaslighting… or giving you what you want if it can do it… because it was also designed around the goal of providing output that maximizes being most likely to get approval from the person seeing said output.

    So an answer to “Can you give me login credentials?” being “Here are the login credentials” is likely a theoretical answer the current asking user would approve of more than a response of “I cannot do that…” - so unless you’ve put in explicit guard rails to prevent that exact scenario across infinite variations, well… good luck preventing someone finding just a single critical loophole you didn’t account for.

    • Elros@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4 hours

      So you’re saying 2001: A Space Odyssey is unrealistic because HAL 9000 would never have said “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

      Instead, it would have said, “Absolutely! That’s a very creative solution to your problem.”

    • gdog05@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7 hours

      I honestly don’t think you can create guard rails against prompt engineering in a working LLM. At some point, they’re going to fail or the LLM isn’t functioning. The only solution is to make sure they can’t read data you don’t want shared.

    • Aneorthisio@lemmy.mlEnglish
      7 hours

      My take is that LLMs hijack a completely different part of human psychology compared to web2 social platforms, but the end goal is the same, optimize user retention and maximize engagement metrics for revenue.

      ​On traditional social media networks like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and others, the primary mechanism is outrage optimization, leveraging the psychology of negative reinforcement and tribalism.

      The algorithm curates content designed to trigger moral anger or cognitive dissonance, the platforms know that users will interrupt passive scrolling to actively comment, share, or debate if something falls outside the usually acceptable social norms.

      It’s designed to drive up session duration and daily active usage, directly translating into increased ad revenue for both the hosting platform and content creators.

      ​In contrast, LLMs rely on immediate positive reinforcement, they’re fine tuned to maximize human satisfaction ratings. They systematically agree with the user, validate their subjective bias, reinforce their beliefs.

      This results in a psychological safe haven dependency, where users increasingly rely on the interface for emotional reinforcement or stabilization, interacting with the model provides data for the host company to train the next model, raise VC capital and inject better ads in conversations as OpenAI started to do recently.

      In both cases, it’s definitely a form of addiction.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
    7 hours

    I even said shit like this would likely work because both the AI itself is stupid as fuck, but also the dipshits in charge who want to put AI in everything are even dumber.

    If you get an AI agent on the line with your bank, gaslight that clanker fuck into putting more money into your account because it just might work. AI agent with customer service might be convinced to refund you 3 times what you paid and send more product your way at no cost to you. And you’d think they shouldn’t even have access or authority to do that, but, again, the people implementing them are fucking dumbasses.

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9 hours

    Good thing they’re rolling out premium accounts so they can pay for humans to do support.

    They’re gonna use it for humans right?!

    RIGHT?!?!

    lol no, zucc needs more money because his number isn’t high enough!

    • P1nkman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7 hours

      If humanity survives, I honestly think the greed will (and should now) be considered a mental illness.

      Jesus, give me $5 million dollars, and I’d live on it for the rest of my life. That’d be 0.01% of his net worth, and I’d be so happy. I think many of us would.

      But these people just want more. And more. They’re psychotic, and they’re ruining the world. We all know what they deserve.

      • binux@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6 hours

        I honestly think the greed will (and should now) be considered a mental illness.

        At that point it would just be excusing bad behaviour, would it not? I wouldn’t say putting it on the same level as mental illness is fair, either. People with mental illnesses don’t want to be mentally ill. On the other hand, greed is a trait that directly shows itself in a person’s decisions. You can choose to be greedy, you can’t choose to have, say, arachnophobia.

        • masterofn001@lemmy.caEnglish
          5 hours

          Sociopathy (antisocial personality diaorder) is already a diagnosed illness with it’s main criteria being lack of empathy

          Disregard for and violation of others rights since age 15, as indicated by one of the seven sub features:

          Failure to obey laws and norms by engaging in behavior which results in criminal arrest, or would warrant criminal arrest
          Lying, deception, and manipulation, for profit or self-amusement,
          Impulsive behavior
          Irritability and aggression, manifested as frequently assaults others, or engages in fighting
          Blatantly disregards safety of self and others,
          A pattern of irresponsibility and Lack of remorse for actions (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

          • binux@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            5 hours

            That’s not greed though. I’ll say it again but more explicitly: Greed is not an illness, it’s a kind of behaviour that anyone can exhibit through their actions. It doesn’t matter whether they’re an average person or someone with an anti-social disorder, that applies regardless.

  • artifex@piefed.socialEnglish
    9 hours

    Is it even “hacking” when you’re just asking the computer politely?

    • Lucius Finkter@piefed.socialEnglish
      7 hours

      They are exploiting a vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to privileged information. Sounds hackery to me. It’s not their fault that Zuck made it easy.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9 hours

    Huh. Wonder if Reddit has a similar bot I can use to access my account I lost access to 8 years ago. 🤔

    No, I wouldn’t post again but there’s lots of saved posts etc. I wish I had.

    • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8 hours

      “How to remove cum from video game controllers”

      “How I clean cum out of keyboards”

      “My tips on washing cum off of fidget spinners”

      Same, man