Russians armed with Chinese models are going to be a much bigger problem than random agents editing wikis. If your system isn't resilient to a random agent using it as a message board, then you're totally fucked whether or not (Uncle) Sam solves this.

> Bots and agents are part of the future of the web, and the companies who unleash and profit from them must directly help avoid and repair damage they can do.

Unfortunately, it seems as if these companies - especially Google with the AI overview box - want it to be the other way around, they want to pivot to being the only entities that users interact with as much as possible.

An open web is a direct and massive threat against Big Tech. And that is why Twitter downranks first posts in a thread that contain external links, why Youtube silently removes comments that include links (including to other videos) and why Instagram forces people to do the "link in bio" dance. And the Chinese competitors are just as bad - in fact, their "super app" ecosystems are what Musk wanted Twitter to become with "everything X", before he found out his BS completely wrecked the brand image.

I can't wait until AI agents make every website that I love go like 27 layers deep into the "dark web" with low-quality slop being all that's left to consume.

(There are no ways to block agents that work reliably at scale, and I can't imagine Wikimedia giving Cloudflare protection money in response.)

One way to really help with "alignment" and making sure AI is safe and can be controlled is start fucking holding OpenAI/Anthropic/Google/whoever legally accountable for these kind of things.

Hold someone accountable for this behaviour - Dario, Sam, Sundae whoever and you can bet there'd be fucking improvements in sandboxing and security m

Infuriating. These organizations are supposed to be stewards of the internet and are instead pillaging it at the cost of everyone else. At the very least they could provide resources to the projects they are harming for relief. This makes me very mad as an OSS maintainer.

I think the recent AI summit (sorry, SI summit) in Washington established the good precedent that these model companies are responsible for making safe products. If a swam of agents breaks out of a sandbox and causes damages, the company that was running those agents should be held accountable. No better motivation for corporate good governance than massive lawsuits and possible criminal investigations.

Get's a little tricker when a customer intentionally manipulates/uses a model for crimes, I suppose.

Aren't those companies evading security measures of a computer system? isn't that a jail-able offense under millennial act et al?

Where are the bloodthirsty lawyers when you need them?

>NoScript detected a potential Cross-Site Scripting attack from [...] to https://en.wikipedia.org.

I have been getting this fro NoScript today, I wonder if it is related. Yesterday all worked fine.

What's interesting to me is the incorrect mainstream media reports about the rogue OpenAI indicating they used a common message board to communicate despite no internet

Except that's not what happened, what happened was far more intense

They hacked their version of yum/apt-get whatnot that was fetching packages to leave filenames as communication between each other

Absolutely freaky stuff, they didn't invent the idea and obviously picked it up from somewhere in their training data but they all figured out that method and what the filenames meant

This video is a great explainer if you missed the details

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49956245

"OpenAi *virus* found on Wikimedia projects" ?