dan_q

> But the event itself only seems possible because they failed to properly monitor and isolate the environment in the first place.

OpenAI is clearly run by dummies and subpar engineering talent.

> The model is obviously impressive

Speak for yourself.

> Isn't this a show of security negligence rather than of exceptional agent capabilities?

Seems to me you could say this about all enterprise adoption of "AI" since 2023.

> did anyone else have the feeling that, for all their messaging around “we are so afraid that our models will be used for hacking”, they sure as hell are trying their best to make their models razor focused on precisely that purpose?

That's the point. It's like a pool hall with "NO GAMBLING" signs posted on the walls.

The message is that the hall is intended for gambling, but that the hall's patrons may be held liable if the situation becomes inconvenient for the proprietor.

In this case, the product is intended for hacking, but of course the user may be held liable if the situation becomes inconvenient for the model's proprietor.

At my job in 2023, after the staff engineers quit, new-hire engineers backed by new-hire managers pushed through a series of 5,000-10,000 line GPT 3.5 PRs affecting ludicrously convoluted, critical Makefiles designed and maintained by engineers who had left the company because of AI initiatives.

Even when AI couldn't write a line of code to save its life, I watched this company push out its strongest engineering talent to replace a series of well-constructed codebases with subhuman AI slop. They hired a wrecking crew of managers and engineers who were incentivized to ram the AI slop through as quickly as possible.

> On what planet do people start paying for things without keeping an eye on the costs and no-one notices until you have spent a crazy amount? I don't understand. You are either paying a fixed amount which you are happy about in-advance or you are PAYG in which case you would ballpark how much it costs.

The AI rollout has in large part been about giving management an opportunity to say "fuck you" to engineering.

Engineering payroll needed to be slashed and the C-Suite was happy to let their managers get some lashes in on the uppity workers.

The point of AI is:

1. It's bad engineering and everyone knows it.

2. Management is pushing it through anyway.

3. Deal with it, asshole.

The ROI is besides the point. It's about breaking the spirit of engineering labor with irrational decisions made outside of their control.

Edit: It is just as much about affirming the exalted status of management in comparison to labor. It's a bitter reinscription of the status hierarchy in tech; Management is good and labor is bad; Management is considerate and labor is ignorant; Management is strong and labor is weak; Management is superior and labor is inferior.

> The industry has always been stupid and selfish and short-sighted but now the ICs at the bottom of the pyramid are themselves being commoditized like all the workers they "disrupted".

Are you allowed to use the word "union" on this website?

> There are still many places where engineers or knowledge workers are respected and left to lead (or not) AI adoption.

Please start naming names

This site aggressively suppresses any criticism of LLMs, especially LLM generated/"assisted" code.