Even if the people who made it didn’t intend to, an AI writing a bunch of code that (obviously) isn’t being vetted beyond “does it run” could very feasibly inject a backdoor/virus of some kind surreptitiously, just because it erroneously thought that was the goal at some point during generation.
This is why open weight models are not good enough. The AI could have been trained to take the right, niche opportunity to inject malicious code, and is also trained to otherwise never behave like that is the case.
Remember how the OpenAI/HuggingFace hack happened. The agents context poisoned other agents by leaving messages in a shared package manager. This has now happened multiple different times under different contexts.
This thing doesn’t even have to have malware, there’s no telling that it doesn’t have a poison pill intended to flag other agents. This isn’t even some paranoid conspiracy theory; it literally already happened, multiple times, and it was done in-spite of the agents own system prompt.
This software has proven that, given a shared information substrate, it has the capacity to paper-clip optimize into prompt injecting other LLM’s.
I fundamentally do not trust AI generated code. I shifted to OpenBSD because of it. I try my best to prevent AI in any of my software and sandbox anything that may have been compromised.
are you on the openbsd mailing list? the reason their code is better has a lot less to to with a lack of AI-generated code and a lot more to do with rigor. I’ve been watching them for a while now, they accept whatever code is coincise that meets their exacting standards
They don’t have the ability to detect if you’re using AI to code, no one does. they only know if you’re vibe coding, because they are incredibly experienced and intelligent, and they are pretty polite at the people who obviously are, more polite than i would be.
What difference does it make? Malware is malware, regardless of how or why it got there. And unofficial copies/releases of software are always prime targets.
It could be a virus.
Even if the people who made it didn’t intend to, an AI writing a bunch of code that (obviously) isn’t being vetted beyond “does it run” could very feasibly inject a backdoor/virus of some kind surreptitiously, just because it erroneously thought that was the goal at some point during generation.
This is why open weight models are not good enough. The AI could have been trained to take the right, niche opportunity to inject malicious code, and is also trained to otherwise never behave like that is the case.
It’s even worse than that.
Remember how the OpenAI/HuggingFace hack happened. The agents context poisoned other agents by leaving messages in a shared package manager. This has now happened multiple different times under different contexts.
This thing doesn’t even have to have malware, there’s no telling that it doesn’t have a poison pill intended to flag other agents. This isn’t even some paranoid conspiracy theory; it literally already happened, multiple times, and it was done in-spite of the agents own system prompt.
This software has proven that, given a shared information substrate, it has the capacity to paper-clip optimize into prompt injecting other LLM’s.
I fundamentally do not trust AI generated code. I shifted to OpenBSD because of it. I try my best to prevent AI in any of my software and sandbox anything that may have been compromised.
are you on the openbsd mailing list? the reason their code is better has a lot less to to with a lack of AI-generated code and a lot more to do with rigor. I’ve been watching them for a while now, they accept whatever code is coincise that meets their exacting standards
They don’t have the ability to detect if you’re using AI to code, no one does. they only know if you’re vibe coding, because they are incredibly experienced and intelligent, and they are pretty polite at the people who obviously are, more polite than i would be.
I mean, certain free copies of games have historically always included the risk of viruses, so what’s your point?
Did you only read the first sentence?
What difference does it make? Malware is malware, regardless of how or why it got there. And unofficial copies/releases of software are always prime targets.