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.

The Americans are not buying the data sources, they have the data sources. Whatever else they are buying is just an addition to what they have. For surveillance purposes location data alone from Google/Apple and/or Meta, Snap, whatever is pure gold, and I’m pretty sure that’s not sold.

Even when buying it - it’s literally digital gold, and probably just as expensive and you would buy american. So you’re spending a metric fuckton of money to buy the dataset and do the same, but worse analysis.

I don’t know how it’s going in France, but Germany hasn’t managed to digitalize anything properly, and even the “flagship” projects are a fucking mess. Even though some of them work (by now), they don’t hold up to any serious quality, proven several times by the CCC for example. Germany would be literally the last I’d trust to build a system like this, unfortunately.

And that’s not starting about the bureaucracy, potential laws that this would breach, and the backlash for ethical reasons.

So, they want to develop a rival, huh?

• no actual sources for data, compared with american companies like Google, Meta, etc.
• lack of experts without ethics, who have the skillset required and have no ethical objections building this
• no infrastructure of this size
• no european frontier models

Or, in less technical, no data to process, no developers to build it, nowhere to run this on, and no technical means to analyze that data.

I can’t see how this is not gonna be a gigantic waste of money, that could’ve been spent on literally anything else that would work better and that Europe would actually benefit from.

“Who watches the watchers?”, that problem is far older than both me, you and every LLM.

Ja klar, ist auch unverschämt und nicht realistisch von mir das man von unseren Politikern fordert auch gute Politik zu machen. Deswegen machen wir lieber Ideologie und Polemik, und bekämpfen Symptome, statt das Problem. Schon okay, ich mach mit, die Länder fallen, die Russen kommen, AFD blöd. Ich bin raus, ciao.

Ist diese gute Politik mit uns in diesem Raum? Hab ich da was verpasst? Meinst du den politischen Umgang mit der AFD? Die Brandmauer, die doch keine ist? Die CDU die Grenzkontrollen macht statt der AFD? Schreie nach Verbotsverfahren und mediale Dauerbeschallung mit Nazi- und Putin-Vorwürfen? Oder meinst du die sonst hoch-erfolgreiche Mittelalter-Politik der zerbrochenen Ampel und danach von dem Bundeskanzler der er geschafft hat weniger Zustimmung als Trump und Erdogan zu bekommen?

Zumindest ist es nicht die Lösung die AfD die Regierungen übernehmen zu lassen. Was glaubst Du denn was passiert wenn die AfD in den Ländern die Macht übernimmt? In SA vielleicht sogar mit absoluter Mehrheit? Irgendwann muss man auch mal den Kampf gegen den Faschismus aufnehmen anstatt den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken.

Gut, statt die Frage zu beantworten gibt’s whataboutism, aber sei es auch drum. Ich hab nirgendwo geschrieben oder auch nur angedeutet das es die Lösung ist die AFD übernehmen zu lassen, nicht gegen Faschismus zu kämpfen, oder den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken. Aber man kann den Kampf auf ideologischer Ebene führen, und dann eben mit Verbotsverfahren und sonstigem die Meinungen einfach unterdrücken, und dann den roten Teppich zu einer NPD bzw. Heimat ausrollen. Wenn die dann mit den echten Hardlinern gemeinsam aus der politischen Irrelevanz auftauchen, machen wir einfach noch ein Verbotsverfahren. Wenn das deine Definition von Kampf ist, na dann gute Nacht.

Es sind i.ü jetzt “27.500.000” Menschen (real weniger denn Babys & Co wählen nicht). Letztes Jahr waren es noch weniger. Und im Jahr davor noch weniger. Wie lange willst Du noch warten? Diese Untätigkeit ist komplett verantwortungslos. Das ist im übrigen auch eine super Einstellung. Man will es sich nicht mit “27.500.000” Nazi-Anhängern verscherzen also opfert man lieber die Zukunft der unschuldigen Deutschen, die der AfD ein Dorn im Auge sind.

Asche auf mein Haupt, 60,49 Millionen Wahlberechtigte 2025, also 19,9617 Millionen. Darf ich auf 20 Millionen aufrunden? Es geht nicht darum sich nicht mit den Nazi-Anhängern zu verscherzen, sondern akut der AFD nicht noch mehr Stimmen zu zuspielen, und mittelfristig der AFD die Stimmen zu nehmen. Und alleine deine sinnlose Polemik von “unschuldigen Deutschen” und “AFD-Wählern” bewirkt genau das Gegenteil.

Auch wenn die Parallele dazu langsam nervt, aber ob jetzt die NSDAP 1933 mit 44.5% oder aktuell die AfD die mit 30-40% unterwegs ist, gut, Gedankenspiel, dann gibt es jetzt das unbürokratischste und schnellste Verbotsverfahren jemals, und die AfD wird verboten (oder damals die NSDAP). Und dann? Dann hast du rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung, die laut der Argumentation von dem Verbotsverfahren eine “antidemokratische”, “verfassungsfeindliche”, “radikale”, “Nazi” und rechte Partei unterstützen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Überzeugung, Frust, Verdrossenheit, Protest, ist auch erstmal egal. Aber mit einem Verbot der AFD verschwindet die Anhängerschaft nicht, aber du hast rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung auf die mindestens einige der Eigenschaften der AFD zutreffen. Das sind übrigens rund 27.500.000 Menschen.

Was ist dann die Lösung für dieses Pulverfass?

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.

• integrating with monitoring systems, analytics DBs, ticket systems, whatever is used by management, allowing them to ask questions in natural language
• process automation using agentic workflows, e.g. pre-analysis of incoming email queue summarizing / sentiment analysis before the customer support sees it
• provide access to models and model APIs for development workflows and integration into git / ci, allowing to use llm in local development and e.g. setting up something like automated code reviews (not a replacement for human review, only as an addition)
• set up coaching, responsible use, hallucinations, etc.

Whatever you do, take security and data security especially into consideration first, not after:

• consider whether your used provider reuses your data for learning
• consider whether it’s relevant where it’s located (GDPR customers?)
• always set spending limits
• consider your local and your customers data protection laws and regulations that apply to your company (especially in health and financing)

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.

Weiß ich nicht, muss man erst in den Zusammenhang stellen ob du dabei die Dortmund-Hymne gesungen hast.

Na hoffentlich legt das Gericht das auch so aus.

Gerichte müssen Gesetz erst auslegen

Welche Parolen genau künftig strafbar sind, müssen Gerichte entscheiden. Eindeutig geregelt ist das im Gesetz nicht. “Die Parole ‘From the River to the Sea’ muss man generell immer in den Zusammenhang stellen”, findet Justizminister Heinz. Die Parole wird häufig auf Pro-Palästina-Demonstrationen gerufen und gilt als umstritten.

Es gebe aber eindeutige Beispiele, so Heinz. Zum Beispiel wenn die Israel-Flagge ausgekreuzt werde oder in der Mülltonne lande.

Die eindeutigen Beispiele finde ich persönlich absolut nicht eindeutig.