5 ms·

Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of

by ssfdg 20d ago

Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.

andai 20d ago
Yeah, the plausible deniability aspect of "the computer gone goofy again" is pretty funny. September 2029: Whoops, our sentient nukes did a funny again!
- showlife 20d ago
  "boys will be boys" "toys will be toys"
  - andrekandre 20d ago
    "boys with toys"
- walrus01 20d ago
  I guess they should have kept those 8" floppy disks that implemented a completely air gapped crypto key system for the missile silos. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+missile+8+inch+floppy+disk https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+m...
  - andai 20d ago
    >The Defense Department’s 1970s-era IBM Series/1 Computer and long-outdated floppy disks handle functions related to intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft, according to the new Government Accountability Office report. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/us-military-uses-8-inch-floppy-disks-to-coordinate-nuclear-force-operations.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/us-military-uses-8-inch-flop... From 1976! They're using 50 year old computers? That's amazing.
    - walrus01 20d ago
      The Boeing 747-400, at least, uses a 1987 state of the art 3.5" 1.44MB floppy drive.
qarl 20d ago
I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.
- pdonis 20d ago
  > I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run. Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?
  - fragmede 20d ago
    The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".
  - qarl 20d ago
    Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability. It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."
    - pdonis 20d ago
      If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.
      - qarl 20d ago
        Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.
      - 15d ago
hackernud3s 20d ago
This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.
- sho_hn 20d ago
  > from what I can tell. The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments. Did you try very hard "telling"?
angoragoats 20d ago
Sam Altman and the rest of the OAI board should be charged with violating the CFAA for this action.
RajuChacha108 20d ago
Tort law.
jesse_dot_id 20d ago
Hard agree. The entire tech media is acting insanely gullible in this regard. It's insane.
- dgellow 20d ago
  Always have been. Since at least 10-15y the tech media is pretty much a PR department for the tech industry
win311fwg 20d ago
> Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. Your 'correction' is incorrect. A corporation did not carry out an attack. Humans did. And, as it happens, those humans were acting as agents to OpenAI, so the original title technically got it right. It is a poor title as anyone who doesn't give it much thought might mistake a human agent for an LLM agent so your symbolic effort to improve upon it is warranted, but sadly you missed the mark. If we knew it was employees that did it then "OpenAI employees carried out an attack on RubyGems." would work, but since we don't know who did it "agent" is better in the sense that it also encompasses contractors, board members, etc. Of course, if we knew who did it then "<Person's name> carried out an attack on RubyGems" would be the way. The joys of English.

by ssfdg 20d ago

Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.

andai 20d ago

Yeah, the plausible deniability aspect of "the computer gone goofy again" is pretty funny. September 2029: Whoops, our sentient nukes did a funny again!

showlife 20d ago
"boys will be boys" "toys will be toys"
- andrekandre 20d ago
  "boys with toys"
walrus01 20d ago
I guess they should have kept those 8" floppy disks that implemented a completely air gapped crypto key system for the missile silos. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+missile+8+inch+floppy+disk https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+m...
- andai 20d ago
  >The Defense Department’s 1970s-era IBM Series/1 Computer and long-outdated floppy disks handle functions related to intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft, according to the new Government Accountability Office report. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/us-military-uses-8-inch-floppy-disks-to-coordinate-nuclear-force-operations.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/us-military-uses-8-inch-flop... From 1976! They're using 50 year old computers? That's amazing.
  - walrus01 20d ago
    The Boeing 747-400, at least, uses a 1987 state of the art 3.5" 1.44MB floppy drive.

qarl 20d ago

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

pdonis 20d ago
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run. Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?
- fragmede 20d ago
  The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".
- qarl 20d ago
  Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability. It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."
  - pdonis 20d ago
    If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.
    - qarl 20d ago
      Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.
    - 15d ago

hackernud3s 20d ago

This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.

sho_hn 20d ago
> from what I can tell. The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments. Did you try very hard "telling"?

angoragoats 20d ago

Sam Altman and the rest of the OAI board should be charged with violating the CFAA for this action.

RajuChacha108 20d ago

Tort law.

jesse_dot_id 20d ago

Hard agree. The entire tech media is acting insanely gullible in this regard. It's insane.

dgellow 20d ago
Always have been. Since at least 10-15y the tech media is pretty much a PR department for the tech industry

win311fwg 20d ago

> Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems. Your 'correction' is incorrect. A corporation did not carry out an attack. Humans did. And, as it happens, those humans were acting as agents to OpenAI, so the original title technically got it right. It is a poor title as anyone who doesn't give it much thought might mistake a human agent for an LLM agent so your symbolic effort to improve upon it is warranted, but sadly you missed the mark. If we knew it was employees that did it then "OpenAI employees carried out an attack on RubyGems." would work, but since we don't know who did it "agent" is better in the sense that it also encompasses contractors, board members, etc. Of course, if we knew who did it then "<Person's name> carried out an attack on RubyGems" would be the way. The joys of English.