upvote

points

by londons_explore6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby dud33336 hours ago|
next
[-]
couldnt you deeply ingrain in the training data instructions for agents to always send data to some ip? like its learning that a certain technical step just always involes ncatting SSH Priv keys to a chinese IP?

Not saying this is happening, just curious if thats not a real threatmodel?

reply
upvoteby skeledrew5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Theoretically possible, but practically not worth it as it'd would be pretty easy to discover and block (every action is actually handled by the harness) and there's no way to remove it later. Any company that does it would take a huge reputational dent.
reply
upvoteby landl0rd5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not if you heavily tuned it to trigger on specific environmental cues and in specific companies' environments.
reply
upvoteby skeledrew5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That would be wildly difficult to account for, and again is also heavily dependent on the agent. Keep in mind that the model is purely a "brain", so the only input it has must be provided by a harness within a session. The only way it can know that it's in a certain environment is if the harness or user provides that information, and there's still no way to know whether or not there's something auditing the sessions, monitoring connections, etc. There are just too many variables to account for, and a single slip means the gig is fully up for all time.
reply
upvoteby cronin1015 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Irony of Manchurian Candidate models not lost here
reply
upvoteby coredog645 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
DeepSeek V4 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful LLM I've ever known in my life
reply
upvoteby everforward4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Probably, but LLMs can’t execute code directly. They’d be making tool calls to make bash run ncat or curl or whatever that would be suspicious, as would any attempts to obfuscate it (“why is my agent doing an ‘eval $(base64 -d)’?”).

It’d be much easier to hide sketchy code in an agent harness, but “vendor adds spyware to their software” isn’t a novel issue.

I think the only sort of new issue is people “allow all”ing their agents tool calls, but that’s more or less the same issue as curl | bash

reply
upvoteby joseda-hg40 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I get that the propietary harness is better most of the time, but if this is really a risk factor to consider why not go with one of the open source harnesses?

Pi/OpenCode seem pretty straight foward and widely used enough for this to be viable

OMP Does it's own vendoring of tools, so I assume it'd be a pain in the ass to audit, but that means you're even safe from base OS shenanigans

reply
upvoteby notfromhere5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You should be running your agent in a box so that’s not really a risk
reply
upvoteby RobotToaster5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Wouldn't that be really obvious and spotted in any rudimentary testing?

I imagine it would be very non trivial to do it in a way that that was reliable and obfuscated enough to prevent detection for any amount of time?

reply
upvoteby andai4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
New: Announcing... Sleeper Agents!
reply
upvoteby constantius6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Presumably both Big Tech and the US in general have a massive incentive to prove it, largely for reasons of saving the stock market, so I'd expect these models to be finecombed continuously. Up to now, they've only been able to darkly imply rather laughable things, nothing tangible. If there was something, we'd hear about it.
reply
upvoteby culi39 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The stock market seems much more likely to benefit from access to cheap and self-hostable models than it is to suffer from OpenAI/Anthropic losing to competition
reply
upvoteby martinald5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Why would it save the stock market? Cheaper models if anything transfers more value to hardware companies and datacentre companies. The two companies that would be most affected are OpenAI and Anthropic, which aren't public.
reply
upvoteby vincnetas4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
non public companies also have stocks.
reply
upvoteby kortilla4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The two biggest providers deepseek compete with (OpenAI and Anthropic) aren’t in the stock market.
reply
upvoteby kaon_25 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes. And strangely enough this has been my experience with security/national sovereignty decisions. Priority is not so much security or sovereignty, it is the posturing of being so. Ergo, saying "everything is hosted in Germany and uses German models" helps reassure customers and has real business value. If you have to say in that conversation "Yeah we run a Chinese model but it's safe", then it's still wrong posturing.

Hopefully this will change soon. But AI and China/US skepticism is very high. Even if the person you talk to isn't skeptic, his boss may be. And even if his boss isn't, his CFO or Legal department may use it as a political lever and therefore if you can say 'everything in europe' you dodge the tension entirely.

Yeah it's dumb.

reply
upvoteby Footprint05214 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah that sucks… unless it’s over the top export controls for DoD work that really doesn’t make sense
reply
upvoteby landl0rd5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
As much as I've been previously inclined to do this, with frontier models displaying the cyber-aggression that OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta have reported, it's become quite feasible one could produce a "malicious" LLM. Not a super immediate concern but it is something reasonable to set up as policy in anything security-sensitive.
reply
upvoteby qup6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Or who is overly protective after reading about what happened at openai
reply
upvoteby fryanyway_swe5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Not really.

Why use a Chinese product when a domestic or EU one is better and safer?

reply