> Meta has confirmed this it intended behavior.
Ayyy! You're one of the folks I wrote my comment [0] for!
Ayyy! You're one of the folks I wrote my comment [0] for!
But if someone posts the thread with no other context than "check this out", then it seems appropriate explain this missing context.
And for the record, I did scroll back read through what he's saying as you suggested. The broader context is exactly what makes it clear he's just a bit confused about what he's "uncovered". (Obvious caveat: I haven't read through everything this guy has written, I could be missing something)
Did you also scroll forward to read what he wrote after the stuff in the thread that was linked to? This tool is pretty obviously designed -whether intentionally or not- to enable the exfiltration of a ton of sensitive data to untrusted third parties while leaving its intended user none the wiser.
a) More being surprised the muse will just provide internal details (which again, as intended) b) the bash scripts are ugly (okay? I don't think that's what we're arguing about) c) surprise that muse runs as root (then realizing this is explained by the VM-in-VM model and linking to the blog which explains this) d) surprise that muse can run as a seed box (idk is this supposed to be the security concern?)
Could you please be more specific about which part you're concerned about? I think that'd be more productive than linking to a long thread, me responding to what I see, then being told that it's just a scratch pad and I'm silly for taking it seriously but also if I look closer I'll see the deeper truth.
Yeah, given how this has been going, I expected that sort of misrepresentation. A careful reader remembers that this is what I said:
You should pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading. Yeah, it's a huge pain in the ass, but this is -AFAICT- the guy's personal notepad, rather than some place where formal reports usually go. If someone walked over, picked up my personal notepad at $DAYJOB, and complained about how they couldn't make sense of it, I'd tell them to fuck right off, yanno?
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117353184983766316>
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117361988874888258>
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117381101404641742>
TBH I saw none of those comments by scrolling forward or backwards from the original link. Now it turns out I supposed to be checking quote tweets, not just scrolling like you said above? (tbf I'm not familiar with the neuromatch UI, could be user error on my part).
Again, I think this would've gone smoother if you actually articulated the problem you're concerned about, instead of linking to a "personal notepad" which you acknowledge has mistakes and isn't easily intelligible, and then blaming me for missing the actual point.
I'll look through these new comments later.
Edit: I see from your original comment what you meant by "top-level". I originally assumed you just meant top of the thread. I'll take the L here.
Like I mentioned I don't work on Muse, and I suppose it'd wouldn't be appropriate for me (self-identified Meta employee) to publicly speculate on what defenses do and don't exist or what is intended. (sorry kinda a cop-out, I know).
Thanks for providing specific links to the specific concerns being raised.
I'd very much rather you commit to
* Slowing the hell down when you're reading things that other people write. If you don't have time to slow down and actually read, stay the hell out of the conversation.
* Upon receiving a notification that you've massively misunderstood something that someone has said in writing, immediately stop, carefully inspect what you know and what you assume, and then go back and carefully re-read the thing you've been told you massively misunderstood while keeping at the front of your mind the knowledge that your task is to find out what parts you totally misunderstood during your prior reads
This second point is a huge part of that whole "principle of charity" thing that's the fundamental part of good "netiquette". This principle should be abandoned when you have personal knowledge that your conversation partner is a fucking bozo or is otherwise intentionally fucking with you... but -as I'm sure you know- one cannot possibly possess that knowledge at the start of one's first conversation with a stranger.
> I suppose it'd wouldn't be appropriate for me ... to publicly speculate on what defenses do and don't exist or what is intended.
With all due respect, that's not what I asked for. What I asked was
...are the combination of these things simply no problem?
No? I'm rather excited that perhaps you'll take this as a "teachable moment" to adjust your behavior in a much more prosocial direction.
So many people wade into a conversation without actually having the time and energy required to actually participate in that conversation. Even if we ignore the ragebait bots and people paid to act like them, I'd expect that this describes the behavior of the vast majority of folks -when measuring by comment volume- who choose to comment on the internet.
Public discourse would be far better if more people were aware of the liberation delivered to each of us long ago by Mr. Marcus Aurelius. [0]
And -well- if you jumped in here because of a vague sense of duty towards your employer... remember that not only are they a -more or less- multi-trillion-dollar company, but they have survived -among so many other things- renaming the company to commemorate its new "this will wreck the company if we don't win it!" project and then burning tens of billions of dollars on said project over the course of just a few years with precious little to show for it. They'll survive some negative sentiment in some random HN thread just fine... they don't need your backup.
Nice Aurelius quote, I'll remember that one
1. I responded to the quote and thread tokepi posted. I stand by that response—the supposed "prompt injection" was a trivial misunderstanding which Meta had already publicly clarified.
2. You sarcastically replied by linking me to another comment that said "pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading." I read that as the top of the linked thread. You meant his profile page, which would have meant reading everything he'd posted since the investigation began to find the posts you had in mind, which came days later in separate threads. I noted I didn't read everything he wrote, clarified what I did read, and asked you to state your specific concern.
3. You didn't state it. You linked five more posts on issues unrelated to the thread I'd responded to. I acknowledged I hadn't seen those, said they were at least not trivially confused the way the first thread was, and bowed out because I shouldn’t discuss specifics of my employer’s security setup beyond what's been publicly disclosed (for obvious reasons).
4. You responded with more sarcasm and a lecture on "netiquette". Then you finished by explaining "prompt injection", which is strange: even @jonny acknowledged the supposed prompt injection from the initial thread was intended behavior, and the posts you linked provide no evidence of prompt injection. So you bringing it up calls into question whether you were actually parsing our conversation and jonny's investigation.
5. I tried twice to end this amicably. Both times you came back with insults and more lectures.
Do you think you upheld your own standards of "netiquette" and "healthy discourse" here? How is being simultaneously antagonistic while refusing to articulate your own perspective helpful to anyone?