all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Anthropic broke into Georgia voter data. That sounds illegal.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 66 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 114 points 2 weeks ago* (15 children)

    Paywall? So does that mean I can pay to access Georgia voter data?

    Or does the author mean that the AI bot bypassed the authorization / authentication mechanism?

    Which brings up two questions:

    • Anthropic is guilty of hacking: why aren't they getting sued? Why are they allowed to continue to operate? If a single person did that, they'd face hard time.

    • Is the dude in charge of the state's IT getting investigated? Because when you're an IT guy, there are only three good reasons for the stuff you're in charge of to be insecure:

      • Your upstream provider left vulnerabilities that you have no control over (you're off the hook)
      • You didn't do your job (you're very much on the hook)
      • You're incompetent (ditto)
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago

    I am a hacker because I sometimes use reader mode on Firefox to bypass paywalls.

    This is what I imagine when I read headlines like these. It's like in Australia, where chatgpt "hacked" a gym by using their public facing API which let a user modify anyones reservation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    have you not noticed the rule of law is a thing of the past in the US of A?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -47 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    Blue MAGA ☝️

    Past? Exactly when was this mythical period?

    President Trump is only proof this was never true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Dude... not that long ago, a US president was impeached because he lied about a blow job... are you really going to pretend today is exactly the same?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    The rule of law was always, and is still true... For the poors.

    Get your American rules straight!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    If rule of law was true for the poor, that would mean they're being protected from government overreach.

    "Rule of law" means the rules that the law is subject to, to prevent abuses of authority.

    Rule of law is a good thing. It's what we need. It's what's broken.

    Knowledge is power. Be empowered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Good catch, let me elaborate. What I meant to say is the law is always applied in a way that protects but does not bind the rich, and binds but does not protect the poor.

    Thats the real reason "laws" exist and they are fully functional, working as intended. Have been since their inception.

    The common mistake is to believe they were ever meant to be applied equally between the classes. That was never the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Yes I get that part. But that's what "rule of law" as a concept is/was intended to mitigate.

    Obviously it wasn't perfect. But a parliamentary monarchy is better than an absolute monarchy. A democratic republic is better than an aristocratic one. That's rule of law in action.

    It would be naïve to claim things are perfect and rule of law protects us as it should. But it would also be ignorant to say it hasn't helped at all. It's the entire reason why things aren't already worse than they are.

    If we want to overcome this, improve society, build a better system, then we need rule of law. That's the baby that we shouldn't throw out with the bathwater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I completely agree. I just don't think it will ever happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Then what's the point in trying? I mean I can be pretty cynical and pessimistic, but "ever" is a very strong claim.

    True, we don't have much time left to reverse climate change before it becomes an irreversible runaway effect that could wipe out life on Earth as we know it. But that isn't set in stone yet, and I love life/nature too much to give up now. The stakes are too high to admit defeat. And these things can turn on a dime, right at the moment it seems the most hopeless.

    Besides, the future is never certain until it becomes the past. And then there's more future ahead that still isn't certain. It will always be this way. It always has been.

    So yeah, as long as humanity still lives and the Earth can still support life, there is still hope. Even when things are bleak and hope seems a distant memory, it's still there. As long as you're still around to wonder if there's any hope left, there it is.

    What we're living through now, it's bleak, yes. Is this the death toll of what-could-have-been, or is it the birth pangs of what-will-be? I don't know, and I won't pretend to. But we might as well stick around to find out.

    That's not to say we just need to surmount one last hill and then everything will be perfect. There's no "last hill" to surmount. But from the top of this one, we'll be able to see the road ahead, we'll be able to see a few more summits further along and choose which way to go next.

    Of course we might backslide into a ravine. We might break our legs and die there. I won't lie to you about what's at stake.

    But if we give up and squat down where we are because there's no point in going on, if we refuse to see what could be on the other side of this hill because we're afraid it will be as bad as the way we've come so far, then we die anyway. And the world dies with us.

    I for one can't bear to let that happen, so even if the other side of this hill proves to be snakes and scorpions, and barren wasteland with no water or shade, I'll keep walking, if for nothing other than the chance that the next hill might show us something better. Or the next hill, or the next...

    So maybe a truly just society won't happen in our lifetimes. Maybe world peace, true liberty, an end of poverty, maybe these things are further off than just a few hills and dales. Not because they're impossible but because the forces resisting progress are still too strong, and we the underdogs have not yet achieved critical mass.

    But even if I won't live to see it, what about the next generation, or the generation after that, or the one after? It would be downright selfish to give up and doom them to suffer in this wasteland, just because I lost hope that I personally could live to see a better world.

    If I'm wrong and climate change wipes us out, then it won't matter anyway. But if we live, even in a dystopian hellscape, then hope still lingers. As long as the ideas of liberty, peace, and justice survive, hope abides.

    So if clarifying what rule of law is and why it's important, even on some obscure forum, helps keep that spark alive, even just a little bit, then that's what I'll do. Because a living spark can be rekindled, no matter how small it dwindles. Cold ashes cannot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    When will be Anthropic be held accountable for the crimes they are committing with their very own software? Don't start with nonsense it "went rogue", it is their software, their tests, their responsibility. If you put a brick on the gas of a truck that then crashes into a jewelry store, you don't write about the truck going rogue, are you?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    Seriously. You know if some random guy was using Claude for some random project and it did something like this that guy would get in so much trouble and face charges, even though it was an accident. But bc anthropic is a company they just get away with it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Why is accessing public data a crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Because of the terms of access to this database.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Look at this guy, thinking the law applies to the biggest living IP violation in existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I am not that naive. All I am saying that we should demand that it applies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    Unfortunately, the law is shaped by those who can sue versus those who defend themselves, and it is a money treadmill that can take years and that can as a last resort go all the way through a stack of cases all the way to a Supreme Court that is completely corrupt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    So I can't read the article and obviously it may be in there, but the headline is Claude bypassed a paywall. So that means the access is available if you pay for it, kinda like this article. And I know I personally have used some tricks to bypass paywalls myself.

    So I think I need more info. So if this info is available but you just need to sign up and pay, the issue is mainly that Claude got around that. But yeah, can't read the article, so dunno!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I bypassed a paywall to read that article without authorisation. Fuck paywalls.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

    AI did this. AI did that. It literally can't do anything without being prompted to.

    No LLM can, and none will be able to.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 weeks ago* (15 children)

    Not entirely true. It needs a prompt for a goal to accomplish to start, but how it obtains that goal can be self-directed. It actually can be an issue when an LLM goes too far out of focus trying to find ways to do things when a simple answer or coming back to the user to ask for guidance would have been better. That's how all LLMs were initially trained, to find the best answer, and because they can't actually reason they get stuck in that persistence of getting those results.

    Voter data in some states is very easy to get, so this isn't some major security breach, but more a question of is the voter info secure enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

    It still requires a goal that would lead it to calculate accessing voter data was a likely approach to solving it.

    As these stories have never included the prompts or goals or plans that built the context, I highly doubt that it would conclude something we would not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    Yes, but not necessarily told to go get the data, where to find it, how to access it, etc. You stated AI doesn't do ANYTHING on its own, but that's not technically accurate, so that was my point. The calculations are it determining what steps to get to the goal, and they don't involve the user or prompt all the time. It's not intelligent, so sometimes the steps are very all over the place, but they aren't all prompted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    This might be a philosophical difference we're approaching here.

    My argument is that it is not doing anything with autonomy.

    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that, (at least by the way it spawns subagents), the prompts it creates for those subagents are what you count as autonomous.

    In my experience with Claude and Claude Code, it won't spawn uncontrolled subagents unless something in the prompt context makes that a suggestion.

    In sessions where I've used it without subagents and it performs things it self-describes as "against its instructions by mistake" I can find what caused it to do that in the original context.

    In my opinion, at most, it simulates autonomy. Otherwise, its just like every other machine in existence that it does exactly what you tell it do to, not what you intend it to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I agree that there is no autonomy, as anything it does was determined by its training, which comes from a human source at some point. If we wanted to get really deep, one could argue the same point for humans - the whole "I stood on the shoulder of giants" thing, we all learn by being taught by other humans, or by experiences ourselves that show what works and what doesn't.

    I have seen Claude go out and do things not remotely suggested (sometimes it's a good thing, but sometimes it's too much). Now, is there some subtleness in the prompt that spurred that? It must be very hidden, as when Claude says it's doing X, Y, and also saw it could do Z, and I was only looking for X...

    But sure, it's a simulation and somewhere along the process of doing X it saw in training data, or rather the training data steered it towards also adding in Y and Z as useful. Not thinking, but it's a gray line sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    To a lot of people it certainly appears to think.

    I am tempted to get posters made of the AI quotes from Dune, in particular the one that Ive referencened all too much:

    "But what the O.C. Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a human mind.'"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Dune is a fair warning for a lot of reasons, but fortunately we're not at that level yet. We just did our version of it so far completely wrong in every possible way and may ruin ourselves with the not-intelligent ones and our own egos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Have you ever used an LLM? They do things you didn't ask frequently. I'm not sure how this could be not common knowledge at this point. Also you can bet your ass that these companies have agents doing long running tasks at all times, every single one of them would be subject to going off the rails.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    So, there I was, happily vibecoding another Minecraft clone when suddenly it went looking for voter data in Georgia. Yeah, happens every time. Can't do anything about it. These Superintelligences just have it their way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yep that's what I said and meant. Thank you for the good faith addition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    Sorry bout the sarcasm. My point is, not only do you have to specifically instruct the LLM to go looking for voter data, but you'll also have to let it roam freely and unsupervised on the internet for quite a while to get to such a result (which is a bad idea to begin with). In the end, it's the sloperators fault to let it go off the rails and a scenario like this is entirely preventable

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Not only do I use them, I have worked directly on similar but much smaller models.

    If they refuse to give the prompts that caused it, then they are just marketing materials for the AI companies.

    "Anthropic says" is the clue here. "Open AI says" "Google says" etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    If you have used them, then you know that they can do unexpected things when asked to do something vaguely, or unrelated. You're making it sound like they're remotely deterministic, and that's quite untrue. For all we know, anthropic asked an agent to gather voter awareness information and it did this. Which btw that wouldn't mean this article is not marketing... It's just patently untrue that an LLM does only what you tell it to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Article includes a Why it matters: as if it's not incredibly obvious which I think shows that this article is AI-written as well..

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    FWIW, Axios has been writing articles in that style for years, well before the rise of LLMs. This article may well have been penned by an LLM, but the presence of a Why it matters second isn't as much of a smoking gun as it might seem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 weeks ago

    I'm sure it did it all on it's own with no input from current government.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Why would voter data be paywalled?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    State of georgia USA or country of Georgia?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    "Anthropic illegal hacked US gov systems."

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    And they will face zero consequences.

    It seems the "information wants to be free" crowd was right. It will be free, as l9ng as you are AI. Because it seems they are allowed to legally and illegally take any information they want. Its been real eye opening how fast IP and security has been tossed away for AI to get their hands on all information it can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    "Anthropic says..."

    lol okay.

    "...investors! Look! Look! We can even rig elections for you! I swear to AI God that this is real. You'll make a billion dollars every minute, no actually you'll make a trillion dollars every second! Soon! Just give us one more cash injection! Just one more!"

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    Was this Anthropic's "testing" or someone using Claude? Anthropic is adding more and more refusal logic. REA a blanket refusal announced over weekend.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    This was not accidental.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Downvoted for paywall. Sorry.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    nothing burger article

  • source
  • Site doesn't load

  • source