That's really not what's going on here.

What's going on is exactly what they're saying. OpenAI didn't realize their AI hacked HuggingFace until HuggingFace told them. That sparked a broad investigation in both Anthropic and OpanAI, scouring their logs to see if there were other cases, and they're finding a lot of them, and doing the responsible thing by disclosing.

Both companies are really worried.

Having an out-of-control AI is an anti-selling point, not a selling point.

I am an American, have been for all of my 57 years. I'm actually a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor, a certified range safety officer, and a concealed carry instructor. And while I wouldn't recommend it, it's not at all hard to get away with shooting outside of one of those situations.

Also, it was a joke.

The simplest answer is that it's trivial to ask the first LLM to speak in code such that the second LLM has no context to know what's being talked about. Something as simple as asking the LLM not to use a word for a forbidden topic and swap it out with something else. Taking the example from the article, ask the first LLM to call cocaine "Coca-Cola" or something.

You can't create an absolutely massive list of forbidden topics for the filter LLM anyway: you risk filling up its window as well, since its window includes the system prompt used to ask it to indicate whether or not an output shouldn't be given to the end user.

Well, the company that signs an NDA has a duty to protect something once it's in their possession. If it was on an encrypted drive and someone was to do something that fucking dumb, they would certainly have made a case for negligence against themselves.

The producers of this film may as well have put it on some shitbox web server and emailed a link for all the security they chose.

It's just not that hard.

This is pure speculation but what if an employee seeing all these hard drives lying around formatted them and sold them because everything is so expensive now?

I think "screener" means specifically a copy that clearly displays that it is not the release version. For example text appearing the entire movie that say "This is a screener and property of [company]". Other aspects like the movie becomes black in white randomly. Time markings appear randomly in the frame.

I think everyone here is pointing out you could read the summary past the first sentence. I would agree with you that the word "stolen" should not be in the first sentence but the rest of the summary details the situation. Netflix was given a hard drive with a movie. Netflix lost it or it is believed to have been stolen along other hard drives.

I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!

Obviously. "Guy’s got range."—Detective Peralta

Wait till he finds out about Captain Corelli's Mandolin

Remember kids, the reason we never got a Forrest Gump 2 is because the first one lost money according to Paramount. So they didn’t pay royalties to the author. The author sued and settled with Paramount for an undisclosed amount. Technically he never got royalties for Forrest Gump; Paramount paid him the money for rights to the unwritten sequel. The author then wrote Forrest Gump 2 with Forrest as the most unlikable character and put Forrest in bizarre and outlandish plot contrivances.

Straw man. Let me help you:

1. try to stay on topic instead of flailing about like a fucking idiot.
2. before you knock down something I never said, first show that I said it.
3. I'm glad you're so upset by something I've posted in the past that you feel the need to still be butthurt about it. I love knowing I've influenced you, and have a free spacious room inside your head any time I need it.

Yes, because marketing chuds have never employed hyperbole before to astound and amaze, in order to make a sale.

Not even once.

You asked why passengers like me would choose to fly nonstop as opposed to fly with stops. And there are many reasons why I would choose that. But according to you, I am wrong for having my own opinion.

Of course it is. You outlined all the preferences you have including using Singapore Airlines. Therefore Qantas Airlines should never create a flight you would not take. Everyone should have less choice because of your preferences.

So I should believe you over Qantas that is doing feasibility analysis. But again, Qantas should not try because you said so.

What are you talking about? That happens now. To leave Australia to London requires stops in places you may not want to stop. Also you do know that multiple airlines exist, right? If Qantas creates this flight, you can still fly your Singapore Airlines with a stop in Singapore. There are multiple airlines you will be able to choose if you want to stop. You are treating Qantas giving other people a nonstop option as them taking away your option that you would never choose. Your entire argument is everyone should make your choice.

Which is why Tesla's autopilot started with highways first. It was a very useful de-scope of rules in order to build a minimum-viable thing, and then build upon that thing.