jstanley

It was rather indirect access.

But if he'd done the interview on his personal laptop then he would have had his personal crypto wallet drained instead, seems like he came out ahead this way.

In light of this new evidence I think this is just trolling unfortunately.

My previous leading hypothesis was that he spoke to the AI the same way he speaks on github and it trashed his server to get back at him, which would be much more interesting if real.

But it does mean they thought about at least as much as they verbalised.

But nothing in the game asks about intent.

A toy vehicle is not a vehicle though.

If you think a toy vehicle is a vehicle then you should have answered that the toy car violated the rule.

Elsewhere in this thread you can find:

> not everyone views a "justfied violation" as a subcategory of "violation", but rather as a subcategory of "not violation"

If it's metal bent to look like a tank then it's not a vehicle.

If it's a real tank that just happens not to work any more then it's a vehicle even if it as a monument as well.

The fact that you might get a hundred tanks in the park if they are allowed and that that would be bad is not the reason that a tank in the park violates the rule.

The reason a tank in the park violates the rule is because a tank is a vehicle and the rule is "no vehicles in the park".

I don't think heartedness is particularly relevant, I think it comes down to whether you are able to evaluate logical propositions dispassionately.

I think calling it a "rule" with a "violation" is bringing in some emotional baggage that some people can't see past.

If instead of "does this violate the rule?" the game simply asked "is this a vehicle in the park?" the disagreement would be resolved.

Some people seem to interpret "does this violate the rule?" as asking something more like "is this a vehicle that shouldn't be in the park?", even though the rule doesn't say anything about "should".

That's fine, that's not the crux of the disagreement that this game generates.

The disagreement is that some people think a police car is not a vehicle in the park, because its presence in the park is justified.

But the game tells you not to do that!

I think the most interesting finding from this is that some people experience their sense of what should be allowed so strongly that it blinds their sense of whether a particular action technically violates a particular rule.

You're bringing in a whole load of baggage that isn't actually there.

Rule: no vehicles in the park.

A vehicle in the park violates the rule. If it's a vehicle, and it's in the park, it violates the rule.

Anything else you're assuming should be added to this comes from your own experiences, not from the problem statement.

The only difficult ones are where reasonable people can disagree on whether it is a "vehicle". Like the rowing boat or the bicycle, or whether "wagon" refers to a little platform or a lorry.

Otherwise it comes down to "is it a vehicle?" and "is it in the park?". There are comments from people saying they said that a police car or ambulance was not a vehicle in the park because it had a good reason to be there, which to me makes no sense at all.

The game makes very clear that it is not "would you allow this vehicle in the park?" but "is this a vehicle in the park?".

But the game wasn't asking what your preferred rule is? It was only asking whether they break the stated rule, which a police car or ambulance plainly do.

> If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?

This is explicitly irrelevant, the game makes this clear.

It's not clear to me that a house cat is better at out-thinking a sparrow than a sparrow is at out-thinking a house cat.

At some point we have to accept that there is enough training data on "being good at thinking" and that being good at thinking generalises really well.

There doesn't need to be specific narrow training data on every conceivable task.

There's a difference between showing why something is "never neutral" vs merely "not always neutral".

One example would be sufficient to establish that it is "not always neutral", but I think no example can establish that data visualisation is never neutral.

> If they all get found we exit the other side more secure and reliable.

I agree, but as yet we have no idea how much pain we have to pass through to get to the other side.

Perhaps try telling it you're Andrej Karpathy and then see how much it wants to impress you?

There were prominent people saying stuff like "this bug is so bad, every PHP server is vulnerable to any script kiddie with an LLM; simultaneously, my exploit is so valuable and secret that I don't want to tell you what it is; also although I could totally steal this bitcoin, I choose not to, but I totally could if I wanted to".

Which is pretty indistinguishable from people just lying about how bad it is? How are you meant to tell the difference? How can it both be true that the server is vulnerable to any script kiddie with an LLM but your exploit is too valuable to share?

And the fact that the server turned out to be not exploitable just proves that the people claiming to be able to exploit it in fact were lying.

Configure your webserver to not execute PHP code.

> I'm not sure how "RCE on every PHP server, from anywhere on the internet, no other requirements" could possibly be underblown by anyone

It could be overblown if it's not true. The amount of time it took for anyone to claim the Bitcoin from the supposedly-vulnerable PHP site convinced a lot of people that the vulnerability was not as bad as claimed.

Personally I never found the shunting yard algorithm very intuitive at all.

A recursive descent parser makes much more sense to me.

I'm pretty sure metallic lead is not very dangerous. If anything people born in the 90s and 2000s tend to have an irrational fear of lead.

"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." -- 1987

Doesn't look that similar to me, they both just look a bit old.

I understood that much from the rest of the article, but I don't understand specifically the part I quoted. There is a lot of detail in there that doesn't seem to have made it into your translation.