3 ms·

The jqwik trick is how to prevent AI crap into your pull requests and issues, btw, I hope it gets adopted widely

by g-b-r 4mo ago

g-b-r 4mo ago
[flagged]
minimaxir 4mo ago
The jqwik trick wouldn't work in practice because modern LLMs aren't that stupid, which makes the whole thing pointlessly performative. If someone else tried to do the same thing again with a more popular/widely-used software, a) the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing.
- g-b-r 4mo ago
  It wouldn't work (as the author acknowledged) but the software would get pulled as a supply-chain risk and the developer blacklisted, ok. What I would support anyhow is less destructive "attacks" using prompts more likely to work (modern LLMs still are a bit stupid, prompt injection doesn't seem to have been solved).
  - minimaxir 4mo ago
    Define "less-destructive." Even 00's malware that just changed the desktop wallpaper was still malware.
    - g-b-r 4mo ago
      If it did that for a good cause, paying attention to not cause any loss, I'd probably call that benware ;) Less destructive anyhow is e.g. convincing the LLM to stop, or to make junk commits, or to go in a loop for a little, anything inconvenient enough to make the LLM and its user give up without causing losses (or at least losses unrelated to the project, since you were told to not use LLMs on the project).
- lenkite 4mo ago
  [dead]
- freehorse 4mo ago
  > makes the whole thing pointlessly performative Performative for which side you mean? The author described it in the context of them expressing their opinion, thus imo the performative part describes all these extreme, unwarranted reactions and canceling against them.
- vips7L 4mo ago
  > the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing. Oh no the people I don’t want using my software aren’t going to use it. The horror.
  - minimaxir 4mo ago
    Being pulled from the supply chain means no one is able to use the software, both intentional users (no one is going to build from source after such an action) and unintentional, and they'll just use a competitor/fork instead as the open-source software ecosystem encourages. Nothing is won.
    - g-b-r 4mo ago
      Is there a universal "supply chain" now?
hurtigioll 4mo ago
this clever hack is pretty surely illegal, it falls somewhere under unauthorized use of a computer system intent is the hardest to prove in the court of law, and you solved that for them by making it clear you intend to do damage
- g-b-r 4mo ago
  The request to delete files is sure risky, but it's far from a given that it would be considered a violation of some law. Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act it might fall under (a)(5)(A), if it happens to a protected computer, but it's very far from clear to me. I'd support less risky versions, anyhow.

The jqwik trick is how to prevent AI crap into your pull requests and issues, btw, I hope it gets adopted widely

by g-b-r 4mo ago

The jqwik trick is how to prevent AI crap into your pull requests and issues, btw, I hope it gets adopted widely

g-b-r 4mo ago

[flagged]

minimaxir 4mo ago

The jqwik trick wouldn't work in practice because modern LLMs aren't that stupid, which makes the whole thing pointlessly performative. If someone else tried to do the same thing again with a more popular/widely-used software, a) the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing.

g-b-r 4mo ago
It wouldn't work (as the author acknowledged) but the software would get pulled as a supply-chain risk and the developer blacklisted, ok. What I would support anyhow is less destructive "attacks" using prompts more likely to work (modern LLMs still are a bit stupid, prompt injection doesn't seem to have been solved).
- minimaxir 4mo ago
  Define "less-destructive." Even 00's malware that just changed the desktop wallpaper was still malware.
  - g-b-r 4mo ago
    If it did that for a good cause, paying attention to not cause any loss, I'd probably call that benware ;) Less destructive anyhow is e.g. convincing the LLM to stop, or to make junk commits, or to go in a loop for a little, anything inconvenient enough to make the LLM and its user give up without causing losses (or at least losses unrelated to the project, since you were told to not use LLMs on the project).
lenkite 4mo ago
[dead]
freehorse 4mo ago
> makes the whole thing pointlessly performative Performative for which side you mean? The author described it in the context of them expressing their opinion, thus imo the performative part describes all these extreme, unwarranted reactions and canceling against them.
vips7L 4mo ago
> the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing. Oh no the people I don’t want using my software aren’t going to use it. The horror.
- minimaxir 4mo ago
  Being pulled from the supply chain means no one is able to use the software, both intentional users (no one is going to build from source after such an action) and unintentional, and they'll just use a competitor/fork instead as the open-source software ecosystem encourages. Nothing is won.
  - g-b-r 4mo ago
    Is there a universal "supply chain" now?

hurtigioll 4mo ago

this clever hack is pretty surely illegal, it falls somewhere under unauthorized use of a computer system intent is the hardest to prove in the court of law, and you solved that for them by making it clear you intend to do damage

g-b-r 4mo ago
The request to delete files is sure risky, but it's far from a given that it would be considered a violation of some law. Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act it might fall under (a)(5)(A), if it happens to a protected computer, but it's very far from clear to me. I'd support less risky versions, anyhow.