Yeah, he really should know better, but why were the necessary controls not in place to prevent the C-suite from doing stupid things? I know it's not possible to eliminate all risk, but enterprise-level DLP should really have caught this.
post
something something her emails something something
AI will reach true intelligence when it is able to tell its users they probably shouldn't be providing them that information.
ChatGPT, how do I erase this evidence that Trump had Epstein murdered? Here are all the unredacted files for review.
Failed polygraphs, administrative leaves and blocking CIOs. Chaos. Pure chaos.
Yeah but Sam Altman is a pal, so don't worry: nothing bad actually happening!
If the United States government wants to use ChatGPT on sensitive information, I'm pretty sure that it can come to some kind of contract with OpenAI to set up their own private cloud thing dedicated to that.
I get that maybe this guy just wanted some kind of one-off use, but then arrange to have something set up for that.
EDIT: To clarify, set up for that sort of thing, not this specific use. Like, have a way to throw up secure, temporary setups for particular users who just need one-off stuff for sensitive material.
They can. They probably do. But he wanted to use the online one specifically and got an exemption. And of course he fucked it up. This is why management should be the last people to be granted extra access.
I thought Barron was working on the cyber! What happened?
You know... headlines should be a bit more specific.
Sensitive files could mean a lot of things. Like, he uploaded CSAM. or national security secrets. or his personal identfying documents.
Doesn't really matter, since he's incompetent and should be removed.
headlines should be a bit more specific.
The information is literally in the first sentence of the article that I don't think you read:
The interim head of the country’s cyber defense agency uploaded sensitive contracting documents into a public version of ChatGPT last summer, triggering multiple automated security warnings that are meant to stop the theft or unintentional disclosure of government material from federal networks, according to four Department of Homeland Security officials with knowledge of the incident.
It's not journalists' fault that you want to consume the news as a series of disconnected headlines like you're in a dopamine famine. This headline conveys the gist excellently; the fact that they were contracting documents is superfluous, while the fact they were sensitive is the entire problem.
Also, it can't mean he "uploaded national security secrets" because that's definitionally not what "sensitive" means in the context of US government documents.
it's funny.
You're critizing me for using a headline to determine if the article is worth my time to actually read, while not actually reading my comment. (And by the way, that's exactly what headlines are for.)
And no, not every article posted here is worth my time or my interest.
And yes, in the context of journalism, "sensitive documents" could be anything that is either classified or confidential. that distinction is important. and in a journalistic setting (which this is, and not 'the context of the us government'... ya dingbat), it could be anything from "how much TP is being consumed in the restrooms" which could be considered an analog for staffing levels, to classified materials (aka national secrets.)
Oh. and here's politico reporting on Kegseth's signal leaks. Attack details are definitely highly classified and not merely confidential.
So it was worth the time for a comment but not to read?
If you aren’t going to read the article you really don’t have useful input for the comments.
it was worth the time to comment and bitch about wasting my time.
the headline was clickbait.
which this is, and not ‘the context of the us government’… ya dingbat
"in the context of US government documents"... ya dingbat. Living with functional illiteracy must be so difficult, but it understandably makes it really hard to just dip into an article and check the first paragraph before commenting.
Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used "sensitive" in place of "classified". The point about that not being what "sensitive" means, however, is ancillary to the point that it is not hard at all to just check an article every once in a while, and it's not journalists' fault that you're unwilling to do that. The headline got across its point fine. We're not ten years old, and the news isn't a TikTok feed. It took me 10 seconds to click the article and read just the first paragraph. I have really bad attention problems, and this is sad even to me.
since you're also apparently "too lazy to check linked sources:...
here's the screenshot of the politico article I linked:

an article that's about Kegseth's signal leaks regarding the attacks against the Houthis that absolutely did contain classified information
So you can argue that it should be that way all you want, but politico is the one you need to be arguing with. have fun with that.
since you’re also apparently "too lazy to check linked sources:…
I hope you realize I said:
Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used “sensitive” in place of “classified”.
The part about "functional illiteracy" was my way of trying to be a rude asshole, but now I'm actually concerned.
Im pretty sure a requirement for trumps cabinet is to be 100% incompetent in your chosen field.
I'm sorry, why are these people still running the country??? Dude, my worst fellow employee or customer I've ever had, to run this country over these idiots!! JTFC!
Here's a nice tidbit:
Gottumukkala “forced CISA’s hand into making them give him ChatGPT, and then he abused it,” said the first official.
And another:
And last week, Gottumukkala tried to oust Costello, CISA’s CIO, before other political appointees at the agency intervened to block the move.
The ill-will and incompetence of this moron is phenomenal.
Only the best, folks. Only the best.



no comments (yet)