It's almost like we could all see this one coming.
  • chuck@lemmy.caEnglish
    18·
    10 days ago

    Don’t worry ask the pentagon’s grok to taskthe nsa’s chat got to recreate your inbox from their profile of you and meta data of your correspondence 🤣

    • ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      4·
      9 days ago

      Last I knew, they switched from Anthropic to chatGPT

      Either way, what Im hearing is you can get private access, with some creativity, to anything the US intelligence apparatus knows. For free.

  • Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    16·
    10 days ago

    Wasn’t this many days ago already, or did it happen again? I remember reading this like 3 or 4 days ago as well.

    • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
      4·
      10 days ago

      This was 3 or 4 days ago.

      I thought of it after Anthropic virtuously announced they would not create autonomous murder devices for the US government (but basically everything else was on the table). Because I’m pretty sure the US military could have just used an Anthropic OpenClaw to bomb civilians as easily as this Facebook AI Safety expert used OpenClaw to destroy her emails.

  • melfie@lemy.lolEnglish
    7·
    10 days ago

    I have no interest in using it, but at least it’s MIT licensed, which puts it ahead of Microslop’s rubbish if nothing else.

    • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.orgEnglish
      6·
      10 days ago

      Yeah, but if I understand that correctly, that’s just for the app itself the LLM is very likely still a proprietary one (ChatGPT, Grok,…)

      • Jrockwar@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        10 days ago

        The LLM is whatever you want it to be. Self hosted or from any provider with a compatible endpoint. It’s likely a proprietary one… Because the cost of training LLMs means most are proprietary ones.

  • melfie@lemy.lolEnglish
    93·
    9 days ago

    I’m sure LLMs can be useful for automation as long as you know what you’re doing, have tested your prompts rigorously on the specific version of the model and agent you’re using, and have put proper guardrails in place.

    Just blindly assuming a LLM is intelligent and will do the right thing is stupid, though. LLMs take text you give them as input and then output some predicted text based on statistical patterns. That’s all. If you feed it a pile of text with a chat history that says it deleted all your shit, the text it might predict that statistically should come next is an apology. You can feed that same pile of text to 10 different LLMs, and they might all “apologize” to you.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.caEnglish
      18·
      9 days ago

      Or just learn any of the real automation tools that have been programmed by real programmers over the last half century?

      • jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        9 days ago

        Recently someone lamented that just asking for an alarm to be set cost them tons of money and didn’t even work right…

        It was foolish enough to let LLM go to town on automation, but for open ended scenarios, I at least got the logic even if it was stupidly optimistic.

        But implementing an alarm? These people don’t even have rationality to their enthusiasm…

        • Flatfire@lemmy.caEnglish
          41·
          9 days ago

          If I remember right, that post wasn’t designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a “how could I apply this?” type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it’s a very reasonable thing to try because it’s a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice.

          The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can’t possibly scale well.

          • architect@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            1·
            8 days ago

            You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model.

            Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      9 days ago

      Because of the way LLMs work, they are inherently bad for automation. The most important part of automation is deterministic results; LLMs cannot work if they have deterministic results. It is simply not a possible application of the technology.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      9 days ago

      Yeah at work I had a realization recently that power automate and similar systems with AI steps are going to be really powerful. Since you have a bunch of deterministic steps you can just have the AI do the one text manipulation bit where you don’t need deterministic output (handy for non-deterministic inputs for example)