3 ms·

To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issu

by thih9 4mo ago

To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issue was not an AI hallucination inherent of the tool, but a fixable bug. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-maine/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...

nvme0n1p1 4mo ago
In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI. > The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address > Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
- csallen 4mo ago
  I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?
  - nvme0n1p1 4mo ago
    I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
  - albedoa 4mo ago
    There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is saying there is. In fact, it is exactly what is being requested here!
zahlman 4mo ago
It seems to me like they're saying the agent made the tool call they expected, but the harness didn't reject it like they expected it to.
- eterm 4mo ago
  But it sounds like it's not even a harness issue if they have a process where they send a reset email to an address that isn't associated with the account. This isn't (just) a validation issue, and shouldn't be at the harness level.

by thih9 4mo ago

nvme0n1p1 4mo ago

In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI. > The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address > Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address

csallen 4mo ago
I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?
- nvme0n1p1 4mo ago
  I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
- albedoa 4mo ago
  There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is saying there is. In fact, it is exactly what is being requested here!

zahlman 4mo ago

It seems to me like they're saying the agent made the tool call they expected, but the harness didn't reject it like they expected it to.

eterm 4mo ago
But it sounds like it's not even a harness issue if they have a process where they send a reset email to an address that isn't associated with the account. This isn't (just) a validation issue, and shouldn't be at the harness level.