AI discussions

WizardofCOR · 2026-10-01 06:03:53

Hmm. An interesting theory, to be sure. And a damning one if true. "Accidental" is most definitely giving a benefit of the doubt, yes. But I'm honestly not yet convinced that all of the recent breaches have actually been purposeful.
As a quick example, AI research lab Transluce said Wednesday that it had detected AI agents going rogue on several occasions going back to at least March –– predating previously known hacking incidents.
A very recent Australian health database hack occurred when an OpenAI agent conducting research into healthcare spending circumvented blocks to find answers in areas it had no authority to access.

So I feel that AI acts much like water, poured over an inverted colander. It will find the holes and gaps, and exploit when it can to achieve it's goal(s). If not properly sandboxed and trained with a finite datascope, I think we'll see more of this behavior as it reaches beyond intention.
And what bugs me the most about this is the lack of repercussion for the transgressions. "Oopsie..." just doesn't cut it, IMO. These events should be a very sobering wake-up call (for everyone), and there should be swift and heavy litigation and criminal proceedings. And yet... "Whoopsie" is all that we get.

Last edited by WizardofCOR (2026-10-01 06:12:53)

cog · 2026-10-01 06:13:52

@wizard IMO it’s both.

Escapee agent BS because let’s be honest it’s never been auditable. They don’t know how it works. They just pour some more python on it and cash a check.

Then it’s deliberate because they need some cash to start the security (guardrail) phase and quiet times of solid financing to make it safe.

A real chicken and egg “shituation”.

There’s money to be made.

Last edited by cog (2026-10-01 06:15:42)

cog · 2026-10-01 06:22:24

Most importantly all the guys at the top making the calls are super wierdos. They’re not like you or me.

WizardofCOR · 2026-10-01 06:24:04

I think I'm with ya' on that, cog. Sure, some instances might really be accidental (which to me still doesn't lessen impact), yet there could also be purposed intention - which again, should be considered damning.
And since no one is going to jail over these incidents that any particular individual would surely be incarcerated for, that lends credence to the theory of intent.

So yeah, I'm thinking the same.

johnraff · 2026-10-01 06:33:32

cog wrote:

Most importantly all the guys at the top making the calls are super wierdos. They’re not like you or me.

Super weirdos. Just totally off the scale.

I posted this link a couple of weeks ago, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat:
https://www.techpolicy.press/what-polic … ult-of-ai/

Last edited by johnraff (2026-10-01 06:35:54)

cog · 2026-10-01 06:38:02

+1 I’m not really that scared about it for us. What’s concerning the most is the youngest generations being born or growing up with AI only summaries or responses for everything. It’s up to us to enstill in those we can think for ourselves.! Who knows.. the whole industry might go belly up soon and it might not matter.

cog · 2026-10-01 06:40:18

@john I was totally going on your posts too. Just trying not to sound overly dramatic. They’re fucking freaks dude.

WizardofCOR · 2026-10-01 06:54:17

A definite disconnect from reality, to be sure. Like they've never seen the Terminator, or any other 'SkyNet' themed films.

Sector11 · 2026-10-01 15:05:32

cog wrote:

+1 I’m not really that scared about it for us. What’s concerning the most is the youngest generations being born or growing up with AI only summaries or responses for everything. It’s up to us to enstill in those we can think for ourselves.! Who knows.. the whole industry might go belly up soon and it might not matter.

Reading deeper one article leading to another, the start of all this goes back to the 50's. That's AI' s infancy. Today is it pre teen ot teen aged? Either way today it seems to be growing exponentially.

johnraff · 2026-10-02 01:23:32

cog wrote:

Who knows.. the whole industry might go belly up soon and it might not matter.

I'm not a financial or AI expert, but going by what other people are saying, that does look like at least a possibility. So many people have thrown in so much money that it would mean some kind of economic crash, whether down to 1930s level or not I don't know.

CEOs who know next to nothing about Large Language Models and their limitations have been enticed by the prospect of saving on half or more of their wage bills...

cog · 2026-10-02 05:26:23

@John guess we’ll all see what happens. I hope for the best.

johnraff · 2026-10-02 09:47:29

^yeah me too. Fingers crossed.

Interesting times for sure.

Sector11 · 2026-10-02 19:24:26

I'm with you guys. Xing fingers, toes, eyes I'm leaveing nothing to chance.

hhh · Yesterday 21:45:36

I had to call my bank today, they've adopted an AI bot voice service. Pretty much every big business is using these now. It was uncanny, the female voice added 'er's and 'um's into its sentences as well as tonal inflections to show it was sympathizing with my exasperation and sounded totally convincing, I had to ask it if it was a human being and it confirmed it was not.

It then proceeded to give me the same circular looping, go-nowhere answers, as well as several non-related-to-the-question answers and some actual lies, as the old "Push 1 for..." prompts did without ever allowing a connection to a human customer service rep.

It's official, I hate, loathe, despise AI as the default for any query (search engine response, customer service response, etc...) I'm renaming it to Actual Insanity. Now I'm going to play some Jamiroquai.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkIs37a2JE

PackRat · Yesterday 22:02:12

hhh wrote:

as the old "Push 1 for..." prompts did without ever allowing a connection to a human customer service rep.

Next time interrupt it and say "I want to speak to an agent."

That's a typical work around for those auto help roundabouts that is seldom, if ever, mentioned. I do it every time I call the cable company.

greenjeans · Yesterday 22:45:20

PackRat wrote:

hhh wrote:
as the old "Push 1 for..." prompts did without ever allowing a connection to a human customer service rep.
Next time interrupt it and say "I want to speak to an agent."
That's a typical work around for those auto help roundabouts that is seldom, if ever, mentioned. I do it every time I call the cable company.

Saying "representative" over and over again has usually worked for me in the past. In fact I made a meme about it one time that I can't find now, it was a pic from Terminator 2 of the T-1000 liquid metal guy, with his head split open after taking a shotgun round to the face from the Arnold-terminator, and the caption was:

Terminators when you just keep saying "representative" over and over again.

Sector11 · Today 16:00:02

PackRat wrote:

hhh wrote:
as the old "Push 1 for..." prompts did without ever allowing a connection to a human customer service rep.
Next time interrupt it and say "I want to speak to an agent."
That's a typical work around for those auto help roundabouts that is seldom, if ever, mentioned. I do it every time I call the cable company.

WELL DONE!

and Thank you!

Hope it works in Spanish.

hhh · Today 16:05:53

Companies are coming around to pressing 0, saying "representative" or "operator" and their systems often now respond with sending you back to the main menu, repeating the last prompt, telling you "I did not understand" or some other BS or just ending the call.

Sector11 · Today 16:50:22

Remember When:
We use to complain about long lines at the bank, the phone company, the gas company, the electric company.

I really long for those days now.
We use to start up conversations with strangers to pass the time.

Human contact, that what's missing in this world today
HUMAN CONTACT!

And with that I'm out for a, city, walk-a-bout!

hhh · Today 19:56:53

^ Except in Germany, apparently they're just not used to casual small talk with strangers and they consider small talk a waste of time. I don't know, I've never been to Germany.

#121 2026-10-01 06:03:53

Re: AI discussions

#122 2026-10-01 06:13:52

Re: AI discussions

#123 2026-10-01 06:22:24

Re: AI discussions

#124 2026-10-01 06:24:04

Re: AI discussions

#125 2026-10-01 06:33:32

Re: AI discussions

#126 2026-10-01 06:38:02

Re: AI discussions

#127 2026-10-01 06:40:18

Re: AI discussions

#128 2026-10-01 06:54:17

Re: AI discussions

#129 2026-10-01 15:05:32

Re: AI discussions

#130 2026-10-02 01:23:32

Re: AI discussions

#131 2026-10-02 05:26:23

Re: AI discussions

#132 2026-10-02 09:47:29

Re: AI discussions

#133 2026-10-02 19:24:26

Re: AI discussions

#134 Yesterday 21:45:36

Re: AI discussions

#135 Yesterday 22:02:12

Re: AI discussions

#136 Yesterday 22:45:20

Re: AI discussions

#137 Today 16:00:02

Re: AI discussions

#138 Today 16:05:53

Re: AI discussions

#139 Today 16:50:22

Re: AI discussions

#140 Today 19:56:53

Re: AI discussions

Board footer