- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ll take “things that didn’t happen” for $500. The AI didn’t delete anything somewhere that it couldn’t access on its own.
Someone gave the AI writing permission on a folder (or even drive) that shouldn’t have it and then asked it to do something that obviously went as expected. People too dumb and lazy to do certain things are in charge of doing said things with AI leading to interesting results.
If you actually read the article, it says the AI deletion is just a rumour. The production company denies it and says that the real problem was human mistakes combined with a lack of proper backup procedures.
Aftonbladet is a tabloid so it tracks that they would keep the headline even when it is completely unbased. I have zero respect for them.
Sounds like someone is trying to keep their job or save face. An employee probably used Google’s search AI summaries/suggestions to either set up their backup systems or perform some sort of maintenance command. The best excuse they could come up with was “the
devilAI made me do it.”
According to sources for Aftonbladet, Mastiff has allowed an AI agent into the server. Then the AI agent has deleted the pre-cut season of ”The challenge” from the server, with no possibility to recreate the project.
Rogue my butt. Someone must’ve tasked the thing to cleanup or update stuff and got monkey pawed.
Yeah, this is just a poorly designed thing being used by morons.
How many times do people have to keep getting burned before they stop sticking their hand in the fire?
Well, it is always different people.
From the errors of others, a wise man corrects his own.
-Publilius Syrus
“Maybe it’ll become less painful and stop smelling like burnt ass if I trust the fire implicitly.”
That didn’t happen. But I bet someone’s very embarrassed to admit their mistake. “It was a rogue agent!!”
Why not both? Easy enough to footgun yourself with a bad prompt (because they’re far from safe) then (somewhat justifiably) blame the LLM (that shouldn’t have had that much access).
There’s only one way the agent got that level of access, and there’s nothing “rogue” about it.
The intent of this story as I read it is to scare the readership into the ploy that the big players need regulation - and the subtext there is to keep out the small players so that the incumbents can have a mono/duopoly.
I didn’t read and won’t read slop articles about slop outcomes, but I find very ironic what you say, after the latest marketing campaigns by the 2 or something biggest “influencers” in the ai space saying things for attention such as:
-
I’m not incompetent, but we must be careful or that book from 50 years ago will turn true and AI will kill us all!!
-
I’m not incompetent, but AI is sooooooooo such very much smarter than me that I put it in a crib and it jumped out with a back flip and in the process hacked 5 companies
-
Meh, the scary in its various forms is IMO marketing and a distraction to try to make it to IPO without having to admit LLMs are failing to scale as hyped (looking less likely all the time). Regulation would have to be worldwide to stop open weights models eating their lunch and the US just doesn’t have that pull any more.
How can a word interpolation machine do anything on it’s own? Do they mean some script that feeds LLM things and then does things based on what it spews back? Who’s responsible for that script?
“Rogue” is just the inherent inaccuracy in ML models.
ML has metrics and those metrics all define how bad they are at doing the thing.
It’s literally just user error. There’s no such thing as a “rogue” agent
Thank God they didn’t delete it in English, would have been soooo sad.
