We should stop using "solve" when we mean "releasing products to target". Nobody will ever solve this problem with LLMs as they are currently architected.
It’s pretty simple. If you want security, you need to segment. Does that make it hard? Absolutely. Are you dumb if you’re letting rando traders access whatever with agents? Absolutely.
The problem isn't even well defined as far as I read it. What does it mean to "solve" federation and what's currently broken?
then IAM has to be structured around that.
LLMs can read in the data class tags, it's not hard. the hard part is classifying everything and keeping agents corralled -- there may be ways to do it at scale, but not easily.
In my opinion all AI use companies should be attached to a specific employee, and that person is liable and so is the company of course for the actions of the AI
It's a bit like the idea of the additional responsibility/burden of the publisher of a newspaper.
"So we can sue them when our customers get angry"
You can either target systemic problems or chop of some heads to cool off the masses- and quickly go back to work.
It's like saying "developers should be responsible for their own security so we will make them liable if a random node dependency in the application they are building gets pwned"
Firstly, liability and security are different things.
Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.
Secondly, it's just lazy thinking to say "oh it's hard therefore we'll make the human sorely responsible".
There are many things that can help - sandboxing, adversarial LLM inspection of prompts, separation of security contexts etc. Yes they are hard and might need new primitives.
Architects and properly-designated publishers both have potentially long liability that is to an extent independent of their future employment. (The same is true of hospital consultants and others)
In significant cases, the way you provoke companies to do the right thing (security, sticking to the facts, not cutting corners in building plans) is to make someone legally responsible if they don't. That person's liability is limited by their actions — if they can demonstrate they discharge those responsibilities appropriately, they are in the clear.
That person takes on that designated role, does the job, and is rewarded properly for the responsibility it involves. They embody the push to reduce that risk.
So an average employee using the tool as directed by their employer, they do not have liability if the company has designated someone in this role. (And in this scenario, if they have not, there would be a punitive fine for that, independent of other outcomes).
I have no particular problem with the notion that a corporate AI safety/responsibility officer is a plausible way forward. If you are delegating responsibility to a machine, someone has to be on the hook. Without such things it's a wild west with lawyers. That's not sustainable.
A news organisation's liability for AI hallucination falls on the same person that the liability for printing a lie does: the publisher.
Developers may not be liable today, but protecting company data and resources from supply chain attacks is their responsibility. At most companies, only the developer is in a position to understand how these supply chains work. Even at larger companies with security teams, the scanners and mirrors are trivial to bypass.
The employers and prosecutors of employees who stole billions of dollars using Excel would beg to differ.
(once you realize how much that phrase is used in the AI-sphere...)
I mean I guess? Sure?