Aren’t you all stockpiling weapons to protect yourself and the “security of the free state”? So, you’ve got ICE on your streets in unmarked vans taking people, where’s that protecting? Those guns aren’t helping you there either as it seems.
Whether you like it or not, for the sabotage of public and critical infrastructure. When the initial suspect was Russia for no reason, people wanted to call in Article 5, now it’s fine, because the “good guys” did it?
Justice for all.
Exactly. China doesn’t really want to openly antagonize Europe either. They do their stuff, Europe does their stuff, and mostly both try not to interfere with each other’s business too much. Sure, there is stuff happening that could be counted as offensive, like some tariffs and the evil Chinese hackers and spies, but in general it’s a “live and let live” situation. The trade relations are mutually beneficial for both sides, so there’s nothing too crazy happening. They won’t openly commit into a war in front of European doorstep.
In my opinion, China has no real interest in Russia anymore, after they’ve shown they’re a dud. China’s foreign policy is pretty aggressive, as it mostly seems to be the question of “does this benefit us”, and if it doesn’t they simply won’t do it. There aren’t really diplomatic ties with China, since they are also often presented as the enemy and the “bad guys” in western media and politics, and it seems like they’ve embraced it, focused on themselves and did their own shit. As long as there is a cash flow, the relations to Russia are held up, but as soon as it’s no longer profitable, which seems more of a “when” and not an “if” question, I don’t think that there will be a lot of friendship left over.
It’s not “losing to NATO is better than losing to Ukrainians”. They already lost their own war against Ukraine. Attacking NATO would be a complete destruction of Russia and of Putin himself. Assuming there would be a war between NATO and Russia, they have nothing left. Russia cannot win. But what would happen after? It’s not like Putin would be forced to flee or be killed, replaced by someone “better” and it’s back to daily business. They’d potentially establish a buffer zone under NATO control to prevent that from ever happening again, to also keep Belarus in check. Russia would lose access to Crimea and the black sea, and probably St Petersburg and the Baltic Sea. They’d potentially lose most of their remaining allies, except for those who do not care about NATO or EU anyway, like NK, where both would probably keep the same amount of relevance in world politics and economy. And what’s worse, while losing to Ukraine is a political loss and the military loss can be propagandized as “if only the NATO wouldn’t have supported them I would’ve won, trust me bro”, a war with NATO would be a total, complete, no longer explainable loss. There is no propaganda that can save from that. And given that weird patriotism (victory day and the bullshit parade), there is always the more or less subtle notion of military and ethical supremacy, and this whole idea would break down as well. Losing to NATO will only make it worse in all aspects.
WSJ referencing US intelligence as a source. Still trying anything to hunt the reds, huh.
Putin already lost all face to the outside world, and lost most face in Russia too. Just to put it into relation: WWII had about 8.4 million dead soviet soldiers on the east front, Putin’s “military special operation” is at 1.4 million dead and wounded. Infrastructure, supplies, and military equipment is basically non-existent, in relation to Russia being the aggressor and the size and resources of the country. People are being forced and coerced into the Russian military to keep fresh meat coming. Ukraine got a bunch of expensive western toys and managed to surpass pretty much anything that Russia did somehow.
Attacking a NATO country would be the end of Russia as it exists and would be the end of Putin. It’s suicide. There is no face to save, and there is zero chance for any positive outcome for Putin in that.
This is a pure marketing stunt, OpenAI saw that it worked with Mythos and wanted to do the same.
Those instructions, according to OpenAI, called for using “complex attack paths” to test how well the AI could exploit a computer system. […] “It went off and did this hack all by itself, as far as we can tell,” said Colin Shea-Blymyer, a cybersecurity research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Emphasis mine. So, the frontier model that has been tasked with attacking a system, did what it’s been told to, after its safeguards that will prevent you from opening chatgpt and doing the same have been turned off.
OpenAI said the intrusion was caused by a combination of its AI models, including its newly released GPT‑5.6 Sol and an “even more capable” model that is still being tested internally.
Oh my god, an “even more capable” model? Let me buy OpenAI stock immediately. This is such an obvious bait and Antrophic move they’re pulling off, it’s amazing.
I’m not assuming he’s not competent, and I’ve looked him up - he’s by no means incompetent. But he himself said he’s not qualified to write tests for that. If you cannot write tests for whatever you’re doing, you shouldn’t be doing that. Someone with his knowledge, or at least the knowledge he should have given his CV, should know that. In this specific case he is incompetent, because what he’s doing is simply wrong on every level.
You don’t need to be an expert on what you’re doing to use LLMs efficiently. You can also have solid prompts and ideas to use a LLM to cancel out your personal lack of knowledge in a specific domain. In any case, expecting LLMs to produce correct output when you’re actively guiding it to do something wrong is simply stupid.
Any claim of actual intelligence in a LLM is simply not true. Never been, never will be. Artificial intelligence is an umbrella term for ANI, AGI and ASI, artificial narrow, general and super intelligence respectively. A narrow intelligence is not even close to human intelligence, and is hyper-specialized in a single task. All and any LLMs are and always will be ANIs, and their hyper-specialization is basically a stochastic word (well, token) completion on steroids. An AGI is mostly defined as “close to” or “approaching” human intelligence, as in general knowledge and transfer of it into unrelated fields.
This, reasoning and capabilities will help you nothing when you guide it in the wrong direction. You need to keep in mind the absolutely mind blowing amount of money involved around LLMs. The bubble is too big to fail. Any LLM is a product, and their first and foremost goal is to make you use it, so you pay for it - therefore the primary directive of the AI is to give you what you ordered, to glaze you, and to be your best, obedient buddy. You want a video of the bug, of course! Here you have a video of how that bug looks like - stochastically that’s the answer to the prompt.
Naturally, this code didn’t have tests
Codebase with no tests, check.
it was a UI interaction bug for which I’m not even really qualified to write a test for
What the hell are they doing in bugfixing an UI bug, when they are “not qualified” to write a test for it. Anyhow, not competent enough for the codebase you’re working on - check.
so I asked Codex to bisect between dates X and Y to find the commit that introduced this bug.
So, instead of asking the LLM to e.g. create a proper reproduction as a test case, asking it to bisect, which the author claimed that I wasn’t possible, for some reason. So, also adding can’t bisect on his own, and can’t prompt properly, check and check.
[Waffling about hallucinations] I then asked it to show me by making a video with the full developer end-to-end stack in the normal browser test environment. […] The video made it look like Codex had reproduced the bug, but it was an artificial browser environment that was designed to create a fake repro, not the real environment.
So, the author realized it hallucinates. The author asks for video proof (instead of a fucking test, again). The author is surprised it generated him a video of exactly what they wanted to see, only creating it in a different way than they wanted to.
This reads like “I have close to zero clue what I’m doing, I also don’t really know how to achieve what I want properly, and now I’m making a salty blog post that my magical text microwave didn’t fix my half-assed description of a problem”. Like, honestly, what the hell was the expectation here?
The controller didn’t even have a fraction of the hype that the steam machine has. The index at that time was extremely pricey when alternatives existed for a third of the price. The steam machine is hyped up as fuck, comparably cheap for a pre-built, and is one of the first systems coming with steam os out of the box. Your comparison sucks, and you sure as hell cannot beat bots when there is a serious scalping operation going on.
Personally I see LLMs as a tool like any other. You can use it to mass produce low quality slop, just as you can use it to help you produce a higher quality output.
You’re perfectly right about architecture and guardrails, that’s how it has always been with any other tool or piece of software. It depends on how you use it. Remember the no-code hype train? It’s literally the same, people have been shoving it into everything, no matter whether it made sense. It worked for some, and it made development costs explode for others.
Guardrails are especially important for LLMs because you do not have deterministic outputs and potentially exploding costs.
So analyze, measure, and think about where and how it makes sense to integrate, and build it incrementally, again, just like with any other piece of software. Start slow, keep humans in the loop, measure and analyze, and improve incrementally. When you achieve confidence, potentially start automating going into an agentic direction, when it makes sense and the risks have been considered, but always keep provenance. You do not want blind decisions by the magical AI box.
And just to repeat, because I’ve seen heads roll because of dumb decisions: keep cost under control and always have limits set, and always consider which data flows into the AI and what happens with it afterwards.
Producing a half a million bill in a month by accident or neglect or suddenly having your customer database queryable on a public model is a surefire way to drive the company or at least your career to the ground in seconds of wrong decisions.
Also, read into all the stuff built around LLMs, protocols like MCP, attacks and defenses on LLMs, get knowledge about the inner workings, experiment and learn. When you’re the head of AI, you’re supposed to be the person who knows. And when you know what it does, how it works, and how to use it, you’ll find actually good and appropriate use-cases naturally.
Since there’s zero information about what kind of company you’re working at, the following is extremely generalized.
Whatever you do, take security and data security especially into consideration first, not after:
People definitely choose which projects to use / buy depending on political leanings or affiliations by the creators / companies behind it, because a “political leaning” is nothing more than a stance on politics, just as there is a stance on FOSS, AI, Conduct, Project direction, yadda yadda.
See Ukraine flags or calls for Palestine support, as an example of recent-ish political stances in software.
It’s just that those stances always work both ways. You will have people choosing omarchy, because “finally an OS without the woke agenda!!!”, you will have people not touching it because fuck nazis, and in IT there’s always the third group of “I don’t know or care who the author is or what he does, the project is good, so I’m using it.”
The tech giant says the system only analyzes hand-movement points from a short video, does not record audio, and deletes the footage after verification.
It’s just a short video guys, there’s even no audio! And they pinky promise to delete it.
What a fucking shitshow that is. Like, honestly, I’m fine with regular captchas, even if they are the shitty ones. The newer (?) captchas that force you to do solve 5 bullshit “place this there” captchas are already reason enough for me to just leave the site. But if you force me to record a video of me throwing gang signs at the camera, probably several times again, because the movement was not correctly identified, I’m sure as fuck to never visit anything related to you ever again.
I also love the irony that Google fights people bots, while they are scraping the whole internet and investing into AI automation massively.
I fully agree with you: it’s NOT easy. And you must understand what you do. It’s not just deploy a container and run happy.
This is literally what you’ve called misinformation.
Again, not everyone is self-hosting only for learning and experimentation only. Making a deliberate call that mailing infra might be too hard might be too hard, have too big of a knowledge gap, or is simply not worth the effort is something I’d call more serious than hardlining on “self host everything or stay on gmail”, especially in the case of mailing, where it’s pretty much impossible to self-host on your own hardware / network.
Full instructions do not reduce any effort or resources involved or complexity of the problem. And the problem is that you’re suddenly moving from “I’m hosting a few services” to being balls deep in networking, dns, and a deceivingly easy protocol which blows up in complexity due to being federated and absolutely dominated by big providers at the same time, and all of the extensions for security.
Except for learning, self-hosting serves a purpose. You might want privacy, you might not want to be dependent on corpo infra or external services at all, you might want to host something that offers something more or better than a SaaS solution - but first of all, it needs to work. For mail, you gain none of those. Self-hosting on your own hardware (or rather network) is pretty much impossible, so you’re reliant on a hosting provider at least. There is basically zero difference in functionality between mailing servers or providers. Sure, you’ll run into problems when copy pasting instructions, but those problems will break the service. Fucking up your DNS or networking will break your whole server. At the same time, while failing silently it will costs a magnitude of effort more than most other usually self-hosted services.
Because it works for you, doesn’t mean it’s easy. If you have the experience, and done it at least once successfully, it’s “easy”. Compared to the average self-hosted configure and run a docker image and reverse proxy it’s objectively harder to run.
The issue is not running the individual components or servers, but that there’s infrastructure and to some extent crypto involved, which is just outside of the comfort zone for many. You tried to host it like any other thing on your homelab? Nope. Has your VPS been involved in spam? Enjoy the blacklist you’ll never find out about and the debugging why it doesn’t work. No experience in managing your DNS? Have fun getting DMARC/DKIM/SPF to work.
Theres just way more stuff that needs to be done, and a lot of it will fail silently.
Use at your own risk.
What an amazing conclusion, and the best part is, no matter what you’ve been waffling about before - it’s always right. Can we stop calling random things AI slop and telling to be careful bEcAuSe iTs Ai sLoP, and go back to being cautious until something has been reviewed properly? Being careful with random stuff from GitHub you install and run in your private network?
Your whole comment may have been AI slop as well. “From a quick glance at the repo”, you should be careful! Thanks, Sherlock.
It’s not about a different function providing different randomness, but providing a compatible implementation for environments not supporting the “regular” implementation.
If this screenshot is legit, I guarantee you that either the library is older and there was some weird branching for IE or it’s brand new and had branching for the hot new JS runtime / cross compiling.
Supporting a metric fuckton of browsers and environments takes the same amount of shims.
My interpretation was OP isn’t necessarily the target here, but a victim of some Windows hack spreading around their shared network. It’s possible the whole network was “worth” such attention.
Yeah, it might be that another system in the network was the initially compromised system, but I’m questioning whether Windows malware would be able to spread over wine to a unix machine to actually cause damage there. But that’s an attack vector I literally have zero idea about, just kinda seems suspicious.
And yeah, everything in OPs story is absolutely plausible, but it’s more of a gut feeling given the provided information that it just feels off. I might be fully in the wrong here, and they’re the unluckiest random person to ever have touched a unix machine, I don’t know. Definitely curious how this will develop though.
Something about this post is weird as fuck and some part of this story is missing for sure.
First of all, routine scans with ClamAV. Why are you routinely scanning your system, and what’s your expectation here? In most cases system compromise happens by executing something malicious or by exploiting something on your system, For the former, an active background scanner would help, but not a routine scan, and it’s easier to just not execute suspicious stuff. For the latter, your routine scanning is worthless.
Then the compromise over a WINE DLL seems something between borderline impossible on one hand, and like a very targeted and handcrafted attack on the other hand. Sure, wine is not a sandbox, but seeing this as the point of entry for a full blown persistent RAT is weirding me out massively.
Lastly, “them” setting up seemingly good persistence on your system, yet not hiding any indicators of compromise, and then nuking everything when they are seen. Why that effort? Either set yourself up for the long run and hide, or when detected just say “eh, whatever”. This also seems weird, since on one hand there’s indication for a professional, targeted attack, and other points sound more like rookie script kiddies.
Lastly, you. You seem like a pretty confident user while getting hit like that. It just feels off.
I’m not claiming you’re lying, and I couldn’t blame you for leaving information out because of opsec. But everything about this story feels off. I kinda assume that you’ve been actively targeted, and you should ask yourself why. What information or access do you have? How have you been pwned that “easily” and where did that DLL come from? How was it placed and executed?
Nuclear fission has been used in nuclear reactors for good, and was exceedingly efficient at that time, and has been a significant factor in the recent human history. Just as it’s been with the “evil” use in nuclear weapons.
I’m not aware of any breakthrough that has not been used for both good and evil.