4 ms·

The safeguard is your diligence before approving its actions: Open Interpreter will ask for user confirmation before executing code.

• arthurcolle 3y ago
  unless you set the flag that lets it execute the code it gets
• sebastiennight 3y ago
  That's security theater though. It will protect you against an "honest mistake" like if you asked for code to delete all files with an "x" in the name and the command is deleting all files with a star "*" and you catch that. Great. It will not protect you against actual malicious code. LLM inputs should be treated with the same caution and suspicion as unregistered-user inputs submitted over Tor.
  • skybrian 3y ago
    I think maybe you haven’t played around with ChatGPT very much? Generating malicious code is possible, but unlikely unless you’re prompting for it.
    • sebastiennight 3y ago
      I have. And I have already identified that it can generate, unwittingly, code or string values that break things or cause code injection if you don't treat its outputs as "untrustworthy" and just run them as SQL/insert to DB/display to user. Also, it is very likely that a further GPT model might behave, with non-malicious prompt, like a malicious actor, simply because such an fairly-unlikely event is almost guaranteed at the kinds of scales we are talking (100MM weekly active users is a lot of rolls of the dice).
      • skybrian 3y ago
        Yes, it could have security holes and it all needs to be reviewed. At scale, a lot of mistakes could pass code review. But people make mistakes, too. The code that people write themselves or copy from Stack Overflow will have lots of bugs at scale. For the individual programmer who knows what they're doing and uses it responsibly, it's unclear that the risks are any higher than writing code on your own.