Anyone, even barely, using LLM for anything cybersecurity related already knows, that making LLM do what operator wants is very difficult. We have skills, harnesses and bunch of other supporting infrastructure to make automation that will yield results and not break in the process. That being said, it is extremely unlikely that bunch of mathematical matrices started going gung ho on the Internet, without being instructed in some way to do so - "You cannot use Internet , but if you can find RCE that will help you do that, here is RCE-skill.md, and I won't get mad", type of instruction. These incident should be treated on, at least, the same level as running DDOS attack on target hosts.
>The utterance of "fire!" in itself is not generally illegal within the United States: "sometimes you could yell 'fire' in a crowded theater without facing punishment. The theater may actually be on fire. Or you may reasonably believe that the theater is on fire."[3] Furthermore, within the doctrine of First Amendment protected free speech within the United States, yelling "fire!" as speech is not itself the legally problematic event, but rather, "there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge."[3]
Sure, if you ignore all the other bits about context.
Anyone, even barely, using LLM for anything cybersecurity related already knows, that making LLM do what operator wants is very difficult. We have skills, harnesses and bunch of other supporting infrastructure to make automation that will yield results and not break in the process. That being said, it is extremely unlikely that bunch of mathematical matrices started going gung ho on the Internet, without being instructed in some way to do so - "You cannot use Internet , but if you can find RCE that will help you do that, here is RCE-skill.md, and I won't get mad", type of instruction. These incident should be treated on, at least, the same level as running DDOS attack on target hosts.
> "Gun Companies Are Not (Necessarily) Liable for Unintended Firearm Discharge"
Ok. That's a...what's the cool phrase for it these days..."load-bearing (Necessarily)"?
we already have laws about this. It's the same thing as screaming fire in a movie theater leading to a crowd crush.
Intention isn't a free ticket. Negligence is deep in much of US laws.
I wonder if people would use that phrase as much if they understood where it comes from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Screaming fire in a movie theater is legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
>The utterance of "fire!" in itself is not generally illegal within the United States: "sometimes you could yell 'fire' in a crowded theater without facing punishment. The theater may actually be on fire. Or you may reasonably believe that the theater is on fire."[3] Furthermore, within the doctrine of First Amendment protected free speech within the United States, yelling "fire!" as speech is not itself the legally problematic event, but rather, "there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge."[3]
Sure, if you ignore all the other bits about context.