To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

Did you guys ever actually believe that land of the free stuff? Wow.

And fair play too. The West doesn't subsidize it's companies to give them an advantage in foreign markets, it invades and bombs the shit out of the entire economy and then sells them "reconstruction services" on interest bearing loans.

So yea. Fuck anyone that whines about Chinese subsidies.

Agreed. I should have said "one system". I accept your correction.

He used that as one example of a whole set of problems. Sure, one model can drive a car, another model can do sexy chat, another can categorise photos of food.

But the post you're replying to, whose point you totally missed, is that AGIs definition is one single model that can do ALL tasks a human can do, as well as a human.

Well, technically, we're letting Natalie do it, which is, of course, worse in every way imaginable, since she's immune to the sense of embarrassment that sometimes restrains him from acting on every little whim.

To be honest that was actually my first theory, since the bots didn't seem interested in exploring the rest of the domain. I suppose there's no way to know for certain. I concluded that it must be an imbecile's attempt at harvesting, though, because the queries weren't really exploring the string space in any useful way. Here's a sample:

"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&re&results_&results_pagenum=2980 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=5440&template=41&type HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=33500&templat HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=32640&templ HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&res&results_page&results_pagenum=39300 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_&results_pa&results_pagenum=12340 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_r&res&results_pagenum=6100 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=2&go=Search&group=0&group_restrict=1&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=2920&te HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&nam&results_&results_pagenum=17940 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results&results_pag&results_pagenu&results_pagenum=37720 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&results_pagenum=9360&template=41&type_r HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_restrict=1&q&r&results_pagenum=28040 HTTP/1.1"
"GET /index?author=15&go=Search&id=48&name_&results_pag&results_pagenum=10400 HTTP/1.1"

The only thing this is fuzzing is the query string parser. It's not testing the limits of string buffers, it's not using interesting characters, it's just brain-damaged. The fact that it's also fetching different page numbers shows it's trying to follow page links and failing badly at doing so.

The site gets plenty of sniffing from garden-variety pests. e.g. this half-hearted attempt to find a framework or two that I don't have:

"POST /__rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth/session HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth HTTP/1.1"
"POST /__nextjs_action HTTP/1.1"
"POST /.action HTTP/1.1"
"POST /_rsc HTTP/1.1"
"POST /api/auth/callback HTTP/1.1"
"POST /_middleware HTTP/1.1"
"POST / HTTP/1.1"

(of course, none of these URLs exist other than /, and you definitely can't just POST to it)

All this said... I've seen that spammers regularly misconfigure their tools, they'll try to register accounts with names like #[X:\LISTS\NAMES.TXT] and it only makes sense that some other cybercriminals trying to get rich quick have a similar lack of interest in programming shit correctly. Generally people don't turn to script kiddie shit if they have a personality conducive to putting in an honest hard day's work perfecting their craft.

I believe the plan was to give that sobriquet to Lake Michigan, in honour of its decidedly flaccid silhouette.

I had a problem where AI scrapers were absolutely DETERMINED to fish out every possible query string from a search results page. Almost all of the query strings they tried were invalid due to shitty and dysfunctional string substitution. "&page=100" wouldn't be followed by "&page=101", it would be followed by "&pag&pag=1010" or something even more insanely half-baked, until the query strings were like 100+ characters long. It was the technological equivalent of watching HIV mutate in real time.

But the insane thing was that, aside from page number, they were always requesting info about the same other criteria: filtered by the same user, the same page type, and with no text string. So I just took those particular values and started banning logged-out users who requested that combination of criteria.

I figured I'd need to change my tactics in a couple of days once the botnet got bored of that particular page and moved on to requesting bogus entries for another user.

MariaDB> select count(*) from ip_bans;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 671671 |
+----------+

It hasn't.

His opinion seemed clearly explained and well reasoned. As opposed to your comment...

We should have the tools. I'm not arguing that we should go back to agrarian lifestyles. But somehow we as a society should find a way to not permit wanton waste of resources in the name of cheap, fleeting entertainment.

The issue is that those videos are being created en masse. People would simply not create them in the first place. Making resources so easily available that people waste them without thinking is the reason capitalism has turned our society into a planet destroying machine and called it "quality of life". Nobody's quality of life is improved by the existence of videos of fake cats doing improbable things, yet we've now invested a civilization worth of resources into creating them. It's the broken window fallacy, writ so large that it's unrecognizable.

Problem is people aren't just querying. They're saying "generate a video of a cat riding a shark", which uses a LOT of inference and compute.

But then you would not have learned the value of a 10 second Google search before asking a question with an extremely easy to find answer.

a) I don't believe you. You're lying and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind. I live in Australia where I probably drive to a weekend dinner a distance that you call a "road trip". The number of people here who have done 800+km in a day is vanishingly small. 800km is NOT 8 hours. It'll be around 10 at a minimum even if you're on highway the whole time. There's pee stops. There's traffic and animal slow downs. There's leg stretching and snacking. The fact that you think 800km can be done in 8 hours in any setting other than a controlled speed run tells me that you've probably never driven long distance, ever.

b) If you drive 8 hours with your wife in the car without taking any rest stops, then you are both irresponsible adults. Which tracks with the rest of what you say here.

c) Because making car decisions based on something you do once or twice in your lifetime is stupid. Which tracks with the rest of what you're saying here.

d) Can't afford it? Then go on vacation closer. Driving 2% of the Earth's equatorial circumference because you want a vacay is not a fundamental right you spoiled brat. Get your highly educated kids to chip in for a better vehicle, seeing as you raised them so well.

I hurl insults because I feel it's completely justified. And given the string of factual inaccuracies throughout your post, I doubt you specifically raised kids to go into research fields to help the environment. If you had anywhere NEAR that level of prescience and foresight, you would not think along the lines of "I've earned the right to pollute for no good reason".