AI agents should be exploited by websites because AI agents themselves are exploiting the websites. I see no downsides to someone causing an AI agent to self-destruct.
If a virus only infects 50% of people, that doesn't mean "nobody is getting infected". The inability for people to see nuance is annoying. 50% certainly is not 0% and it is not 100%. The idea that "perfect is the enemy of good" still applies to modern life, even if you don't understand it.
This is exactly what the AI development community needs because false information is a HUGE problem. A highly delusional user is a low bar but if they can detect simple delusions then it may be possible to expand that to a more general "fact or fiction" engine when interfaced with the "reasoning engine".
The result of the basic ability to tell fact from fiction would be immensely useful because it would result in a feedback loop in which AI would be able to analyze it's own statements and the retrain itself when incorrect information is detected, altering the weights that promoted incorrect output, and potentially eliminating hallucinations entirely. This seems like the goal for anyone developing AI.
I've heard similar arguments in jail. Psychopaths blame the victims for allowing themselves to be exploited.
You see this as victim and perpetrator. I see this as, lesser perpetrator and greater perpetrator. Both parties are to blame. The world is not black and white, it is a sea of gray.
Calling him a 'child' is a bit of a stretch, too, unless you mean 'an immature or irresponsible person' or 'a person who has little or no experience in a particular area' or 'a young human below the age of puberty'.
"Lane said he was a prolific cyber criminal by age 15, and usually directed his cyberattacks toward "big, big" targets."
It implies that he shouldn't be treated as an adult....and the court decided he should be.
No, that's what you have inferred. He's an adult now and will be treated as such.
If a massive amount of critical information and system of your business can be held hostage by a child then you are not "taking security very seriously" and you do not "respect the rights of [your] users".
That fact that stuff like this happens is astoundingly stupid. This foolish child isn't innocent but the businesses are all guilty as a hell.
I was curious so I looked up the details about NULLFS.
Apparently, there is an issue with swapping the root filesystem which is done using the syscall pivot_root()... but not with initramfs,
per the man page...
The rootfs (initial ramfs) cannot be pivot_root()ed. The recommended method of changing the root filesystem in this case is to delete everything in rootfs, overmount rootfs with the new root, attach stdin/stdout/stderr to the new
So basically, this fixes a long-standing hack that well... is not safe in some cases, most notably with with containers (CVE-2020-15257). The proper solution was to make a simple null filesystem that could use pivot_root and swap out the rootfs without hacks.
More details here: https://lwn.net/Articles/10621...
And here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...
it's pretty obvious that ChatGPT came up with their game plan.
I already hate systemd, I don't need you people to make it into an even greater abomination. Do you want to have programmers start making blood oath's the destroy systemd? Because this how you get blood oaths!
only the exact passcode worked, showing that the odds of an unauthorized person guessing it had dropped to just two in 990, or 0.2%
If you have a real lab, is 1000 different attempts really that hard to do? By hand, it would be a pain but you can automate the process, right?
Also, what if you sequence the encrypted DNA, can you not simply simulate the application of the chemicals? Running about 1000 detailed simulations doesn't strike me as being too computationally intensive to pull off.
I presume they mean that they extracted oxygen because making oxygen via fusion or fission seems unrealistic.
This means that plaintiffs will recover somewhere between 26% and 53% of overcharge damages, according to one of the court documents (PDF) -- far beyond the typical amount, which lands between 5% and 15%.
Anything short of 100% is merely a cost of doing business. This is no victory, this is yet another loss in the long history of losses against corporations.
Them as has, gets.