openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Except LLMs haven’t show themselves capable of that at all, they have no agency, they just generate output based on their input Ina somewhat chaotic manner.
Tools have been built that basically chain LLM output into input and given some starting directions get the LLM to generate commands that can be ran on the local machine including commands to run commands on other machines. Because various conversations on exploits and hacking and sample code are in its training corpus it will generate commands to do these things. Not because the LLM or the agent program is smart in anyway but I fact because it’s dumb as bricks and has no concept of what it’s doing or the consequences might be.
Ultimately a human has used it as a tool to achieve the hacking. It’s might not be the intended achievement but that is on the human running a process with chaotic output with sufficient privileges with no oversight.
It’s hard to take this type of response seriously as it simply ignores objective reality. The claim of a human being required to start the process is utterly meaningless to the point. Sure though, I’ll throw you a bone: if no human ever initiates the task it simply won’t happen. Can we move on now since humans are happily initiating the actions?
I couldn’t care less what people think about whether or not they are “thinking” or “having agency of their own”[1]. I care about the practical reality of the world in which LLMs have shown, and will continue to show, the ability to exploit computer systems and humans. You can toss your head in the sand and think you have some sort of weird pseudo-intellectual high ground by claiming “but akchtually it’s just a result of their training data”. Like, yea, dawg, that’s how this works, congrats. Of course the thing that is trained on training data is trained on training data.
[1] At least when discussing their capabilities. When someone is willing to have that discussion beyond the tired “they’re just autocomplete!” trivialization it’s interesting.