cross-posted from: https://feddit.online/c/tech@piefed.world/p/2029848/an-ai-agent-deleted-a-fully-edited-new-season-of-the-swedish-tv-show-the-challenge-sver
Agent deletes my data is the new dog ate my homework.
I would be so fucking mad if I worked on this and some producer just gave AI direct access to the only copy.
I would be so mad if I was a producer, and there was only one copy of anything important.
In 1997 a company I worked for “lost” a month of fully rendered 3D video. Big deal you’re saying, but 30 days of a rendering farm in 1997 was worth a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Somebody formatted the drive by accident.
This shit happens all the time, it’s appallingly common. I guarantee some idiot somewhere in the chain of command said no we are not budgeting $1,000 for a couple RAID arrays or backup drives
Oof.
As someone who edits my own videos for YouTube, can’t imagine how much work that was. Just gone. Poof.
Oh well. Don’t use bullshit AI next time.
No backups? Maybe I can understand not having full duplicates due to the cost, but surely it was on a system with at least snapshots in place or something right??
Watch LGTM video
Good. The more thins shit happens the more people will rip relying on it and see it as the unreliable bullshit that it is.
But they can restore from backups. They backed up their data, right?
Whatever the agent was actually doing, the real failure is that it had destructive write access to the only copy of finished work. That’s a permissions problem before it’s an AI problem — no automation, human or otherwise, should be able to hard-delete production assets without a human confirming the destructive step.
The fact that the season is just gone also tells me there was no immutable backup or soft-delete tier behind it, which is rough for a broadcast workflow where the footage is irreplaceable. Agents are getting broad tool access by default right now, and this is the cautionary tale for giving them delete rights alongside read rights.
Permissions that ai can access and change lol
Get out of here loser
I’d assume they’re using cloud, so permissions are scoped per service. For example, if they used aws, they could have S3 create but no delete, and the role has no permissions to IAM (aws equivalent of permission policy)
If they just have some linux server then they can manage with users and have write permissions restricted to owner of the file.
They probably just let AI assume Admin and let it do whatever because nontechnical people don’t understand least permission
You are a fucking AI bro. Get out of here.
Shouldn’t be giving them any rights at all
How do you not have backups of this?
The headline is an example of a new grammar structure, the agentic passive voice.
The article plainly states that the production company says it wasn’t AI, but instead that it was human error that led to the data loss.
The AI-thing was merely a rumour.
Humans run AI. Even if it was deleted by AI, it’s still the responsibility of the person running it.
i would say it’s the fault of whoever thought it was a good idea to hook it up to their data. the workers are just doing what they’re paid to do and trying to put up with literal insanity or risk termination.
I blame the one who should have set the backups. Even if it was deleted by a malicious actor, they there’s no excuse to not have backups
they say specifically “inte är en ”AI-agent som agerat självständigt”” (double quote). which translate to an "not an “AI agent which acted independently”. so depending if that counts as human error or not… still up to to debate. It probably was AI, just not someone shift+delete the wrong folder.
I do however blame the backup crew which definitely should’ve had their backups in place.
Let’s not let the truth get in the way of a sensationalist headline. It only matters that you click.
Is “AI deleted it” the new “my dog ate it” ?
“Timmy, why did the dog have root access?”
sudo eat -rf ./Homework
~$ sudo eat -rm ./Homework @crank0271@lemmy.world is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.sigh
~$ groups crank0271 docker ~$ docker run -rm -v ./Homework:/mnt/Homework --entrypoint '/bin/sh' alpine:latest -c 'sudo eat -rf /mnt/Homework'~$ groups crank0271 docker
~$ docker run -rm…
No joke, this is exactly what LLMs will do if they can’t do something directly.
This is why I told some colleagues several times to NOT put their user into the docker group AND to set the docker command for Claude at least to ‘ask every time’.
That fucker circumvents your guardrails all the time. “Oh I’m not allowed to read a .env file with the harness? Let’s check
cat .env!” Yesterday Claude even wrote a little python script to try to print the .env file, because he thought he’d need it to debug a container. (Spoiler - the problem wasn’t even with some env vars and also the .env was just filled with dummy values as it is an example from a public repository anyways).
håhåhåhå
Removed by mod
He’s the show’s host. So no, its not an interesting choice, its the obvious choice.
The person you’re responding to seems to be a repeated race baiter on here.
I’m reading in translation where he is credited with “leading” the program, which could be host or could be showrunner.
As showrunner, he’d have more call to be there. As host, even less.
“Someone majorly fucked up and also here’s a picture of someone” is kinda not great journalism, regardless.
He’s the public face of the programme as the host. As in, when the show is mentioned, its his face people recognise. Its standard unremarkable journalistic practice. Paranoia is not a good look.
Being the host makes it very not likely that he was the one responsible for managing the footage since those are two different jobs. That makes it unfortunate, if not borderline-libelous, to put his face on this article and give the impression that he was the one responsible for the fuck-up.
Its simply not reasonable for anyone to get the idea that the host was responsible because they are pictured in the article.
Can confirm, he is the host.
I don’t mind that he’s black, but he is cringe af as a television host. Not professional or eloquent at all. Not funny, but definitely trying his hardest to be so. Lame jokes that he laughs at himself, sometimes the only one who laughs, which is… uuughhh.
I think he is there to appeal to a certain subdemographic of youth, and that is definitely not me. 😬 I can imagine certain people like him for his performance though.
Nope.
