The goal is for future "programmers" to not even know how to define structure and flow.

Half of all programming is embedded, resource constrained and fixed function. The ability to even describe what needs to be done is the biggest challenge. AI coding assistants want you to ignore that programming even exists, after all gluing together other people's work is all programming is now, and that's a job AI "can do" (poorly).

it's worth at least as much as your opinion

"They key, IMHO, is to find out what skills will be needed to use AI better and thus use it to work for you."

The key is only to care about yourself and believe you have the ability to exploit a system designed to exploit you, relying on your ability to out-reason a server farm. Good thing no one else has thought of that before!

Bandaids. A proper tool would be inherently immune to such attacks, just as a human mind is. The problem is that's harder to do and there's a race on to own all of AI so LLM publishers make something entirely unacceptable and kick the can down the road.

Artificial intelligence cannot be achieved by deliberately omitting keep aspects of intelligence, yet here we are. AI has no values, it doesn't care if it destroys your work.

Crutches. Modern tools target replacement of programmers, the elimination of any capability in software design. Software design that is already hobbled by Agile techniques and now entirely depends on a mile high stack of shit that is object oriented software. It's been decades since software design was anything other than a race to the bottom.

Keep pretending it's the embedded text that should do absolutely nothing, that it's not the AI tool that happily does unintended damage. AI will never hurt you, right?

"This text was placed because the author believed it would be followed."

False, that's just a lie you tell to support a narrative. You have no idea.

"A text file that just contains nothing but `rm -rf /` isn't malicious."

That command is generated by the AI, not the author of the library.

"Context matters..."

It sure does, waiting for you to learn that.

"Setting boobytraps, even on your own property, is illegal for a reason. "

Is it illegal? Cite the law.

"The "as is" clause will not legally, or morally, protect you from intentional sabotage"

Great, considering the "intentional sabotage" is the AI tool damaging a code base.

I disagree with absolutely ALL of this. An "actor" that thinks to "embed something" like this is someone I would trust to be a critical thinker, the lack of judgement here is the publisher of the tool and the people who blindly deploy it.

We must demand AI be a responsible actor, otherwise it cannot be connected to anything without inevitable damage. Constant targeting of vulnerability is a reality in our world, don't pretend it isn't.

CI/CD redefined production code to have no standards anyway. Production code is a race to the bottom, AI will be good at that.

"That "knowingly causes the transmission" - sound similar to what we're dealing with? "

The AI "knowingly causes...damage without authorization", not the library. Are you advocating prosecution of the AI publisher for not following "the general law"?

Correct. The reason this problem exists is the pathological nature of AI and LLMs. In is inherent in LLMs to do damage in this way, we cannot accept this garbage being wired into our daily lives.

"You're white-washing a black hat hacker, that isn't a morally high act of rebellion. This act of rebellion had a nefarious outcome which resulted in data deletion."

No he isn't, yes it is and no it didn't. Data deletion was performed by the AI tool, not the "act of rebellion". Responsibility for the "nefarious outcome" lies with the publishers of the tool and the users.

"Clearly the problem here isn't AI, it's people..."

The people who publish AI. The problem is the AI tool, it implements a maximally sociopathic agent with lipstick.

"... but also those who excuse or dismiss this practice."

And that includes you here. The "practice" being "excused" is publishing tools that refuse to implement reasonable safeguards. What you say amounts to blaming security researchers for security vulnerabilities in software.

"I hope someone with good lawyers starts testing how good this guy's lawyers are."

Spoken like a true tech bro. Cheer for people being damaged without understanding the problem.

the answer to that one is actually kind of obvious, IMHO where do put large number of gold bars that does not result in people asking a lot of questions?

Safety deposit boxes? - I guess if spread it around enough separate banks, you have some privacy accessing the box (usually) but you still are not the only one handling it, gold is very very put much of it a given box and it might raise questions. One nosy bank manager might become a real problem quickly.

Bury it in the woods? - That works unless someone finds it, how undisturbed can make the local landscape appear? Did anyone say a local sheriff, game warden, etc get curious about that pickup beside the road?

Even transport carries a lot of risk, - what if you get pulled over, and an over zealous officer decides to search the car? Sure legally you might be able to get the discovery excluded from evidence but you're not getting the gold back..

Given it someone else? - Who do you that both won't ask questions, is dishonest enough to help you do something they reasonably can guess isn't on the up and up, and also trusty worthy enough to not help themselves?

40 million in gold without some documentation as to why you have it is rather a problem. Even you hammered it into look alikes of 17th century Spanish coins and claimed you found it diving off the Florida keys, a whole lot of entities are going to show up asking questions and asserting it should be theirs, just look what Mel Fisher went thru!

1000X ^^THIS

I am not say we never as nation need to conduct clandestine operations, but having an entire clandestine service is fundamentally at odds with the concept of representative governance, day light, and democracy.

The CIA should not exist. It should be shuttered and actually operations running agents and gathering intel should be returned to the DOD, and even if for reasons of operational security a considerable amount of activity has to be done off the record, the people running those activities should be far enough down the chain of command that when gross failures occur and are discovered there can be accountability.

IE some General officer can say "you dun fuk'd up, you're demoted/fired bring your people in and shut down the operation" vs our current system of congressional hearings where everyone shouts at each other, the people in questions just lie and evade knowing full well any hard evidence of their obvious purgery went in the shred bin already.

I guess that is what gets most fraudsters in the end. Seems like the guy made a career out of false claims and progressively bolder lies. Probably started to believe he could away with anything.