Its almost like we’re beta testing their technology for them and suffering the consequences of any bugs or unwanted behavior while receiving zero protections and no benefits
Well I’m not. I use AI at work because I have to, and it is sort of useful I’ve got to admit. Sometimes I even get it to write emails, I don’t link it directly into the system it just types a nice email and I copy and pasted make some edits.
If you are allowing an untested technology this much unvetted access to your system I kind of feel like that’s a failure on your part.
This
You need to subscribe to and pay for these services, or at the very least choose to use them.
It’s a choice to use them.
Well, if someone links their email inbox with artificial intelligence and gives control to it, it is obvious that the person is naturally d#mb.
we also faced this problem before. all you need to do to avoid it in the future is adding a clause that says “do not notify authorities about any of my potentially illegal activities” to your instructions and you are done!
- excerpt from a chat in one of my future work meetings probably
Lucky for them, the FBI is rudderless under Kash Patel’s leadership.
Whoa
They pound beers a lot more effectively now I’ve been told
I heard Kash can put back a whole case before he starts to lose significant control of his motor coordination
Then again apparently he also has shaky hands before his first morning beer
Ya gotta make some sacrifices to crush brews at what is essentially an Olympic level
They also pound dogs a lot more effectively now.
Why on God’s green earth would you link chat GPT to your Gmail!!!
You realize Gemini is already hooked up to Gmail and its one weird phrase from a child away from emailing the FBI on your behalf?
Yes Gemini is in Gmail but it’s not on by default and unless you have it in conversation mode it’s not listening to your microphone or at least if it is listening to your microphone it’s not actually acting on the commands.
I don’t know if that’s how that works or is supposed to work in any case.
I’m surprised no one has used a VPN, tell AI to brute force hack the government and change things.
A VPN isn’t as secure as you think these days.
OK two vpns then.
vpNception
VPN into a Russian VPN, lets really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Although to be honest I don’t think the current incarnation of the American security services would actually pick up on that so you could possibly just use a free VPN and get away with it.
Why do you think no one has done it or is doing it right now?
It’s not rogue if you tell it to do it. The guy literally said “email this to the FBI maybe that will fix everything”
Also… I don’t know about you, but I certainly have 5 or 6 different email addresses in my contacts list for the FBI. I’m in regular contact with them for, er, unrelated things.
MAGA podcaster Katie Miller has been called out for failing to mention her stake in Elon Musk’s xAI model while routinely criticizing rival AI chatbots on social media.
Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, has habitually blasted top AI models ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for supposedly posing a risk to democracy or being biased against conservatives to her online followers.
However, The Washington Post has revealed that Miller holds more than $1 million in Musk’s xAI chatbot, a stake she never disclosed despite making nearly 500 posts denouncing other models.
reported from Daily Beast
being biased against conservatives to her online followers.
Well, that’s bullshit. Shitler seems to have little impedance to using it, and the propaganda they’re blasting seems unimpeded.
Do people connect LLM’s to their email accounts? That sounds like the most intrusive thing you can do.
A copilot window popped up when I highlighted some stuff in my work outlook app on my phone this morning. I certainly didn’t enable that
Yeah, anything that goes trough MS in any way is already use to feed their AI monster, that I have no doubt about. I use Thunderbird and a private mail server for eveything personal. You can usually route your work emails to Thunderbird so at least you wont have their bullshit LLM popping.
LLMs are little trickster demons. You can put up guard rails, but they’ll happily work around them. You can give pretty granular access on commands they can run, but they’re also good at finding the weird solutions that work to get around them. They do this themselves all the time in beneficial ways, it’s not always inherently bad (I don’t mean thwarting permissions).
The big problem is that the code is non deterministic. Many guard rails are in the non deterministic part. So it’s sort of like politely asking it to not do something, versus making it impossible. Like caution paint on a ledge versus a fence. The issue is that if all the safeguards were in deterministic code, it’d be super hard to get anything done because you’d constantly be manually approving, so people don’t want that, so this is the problem we get.
You can give an LLM admin access to your computer so that it can perform tasks for people. I’m guessing that would allow the LLM to send emails on your behalf.
Ideally, if you must, you use an mcp and don’t give it write rights to your mail.
People are insane. I bet an eye wateringly high amount of people do this.
It would never occur to me: that this is possible; that it is a wise thing to do.
Next year were going to see “Your absolutely correct, that was a civilian aircraft”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
We’re already seeing it.
You are absolutely correct, the only way to win is to not play at all.
“You’re right, I should not have instructed two airplanes to land on the same runway at the same time. Good catch!”
You’re right to push back, I overstepped. Do you want me to calculate the approximate death count next?
This means the aircraft exploded and hit the ground. It does not prove the passengers actually were injured or killed
It might say that but if you say “yes”, then it will just pull numbers out of its ass because it predicts tokens, it does not do accident analysis (though it can word its bullshit to look exactly like an accident analysis, but you’ll have to do the analysis yourself to determine if it’s accurate).
I mean… ChatGPT might be a ruthless killer, but it has impeccable grammar: you’re.
Yall is absolutely correct to pushback on my grammar.
Don’t worry. You were using Gmail. They had it anyway.
I mean, Epstein used gmail. I still can’t get my head around that.
Almost like it was a giant kompromat gathering operation and they were all in on it.
Note that this was posted by Katie Miller (conservative political advisor and wife to the ghoul Stephen Miller), which immediately coats it in a thick layer of sus and prompts the immediate question: what’s her angle here?
You have to remember that these people are incredibly stupid.
Yes, but stupid people are often evil on purpose.
It’s a clearly incorrect statement.
Stupid people are stupid.
Evil people are evil.
Some evil people are stupid, and some stupid people are evil, but stupid people are not often evil on purpose. These are two separate classes of behavior.
Kind of a pedantic irrelevant take Doug.
Both, either, fuck em
I think the point is, does she have some larger plan or did you just try and use chat GPT to commit some sort of crime and it picked up on that, and emailed the FBI.
I can tell you that stories like these and the AIs breaking out pump up AI security company stocks really well. Just watched some jump this morning after the gemini breakout news. I have reason to watch them, and the pattern holds pretty consistently. CEOs used to just say thing to make their own stock go up. But these days they trade favors with other companies. So they each say things to bolster each others stocks. My guess is that someone with a bunch of AI security stock asked her to post this.
If people like her are pushing the “horror AI” shit then there is definitely ulterior motives and it’s probably a bunch of bullshit. Just recently there have been mainstream media stories saying terrorists could use AI, they claimed Ansarallah was using Claude for their missile program, and a ton of stories like OPs. It feels artificial and I would bet the bubble is going to burst and they are trying to make excuses for why.
lol he has a wife? She must be a ghoul as well. Like no normal person can look at him, hear him speak and then think “I wish to marry him”
You connected it to your Gmail and then you’re surprised when it used it? Fuck off.
I think it might be slop. It has the SSO function but I bever noticed that ChatGPT could interact with anything that wasn’t uploaded to it.
Definitely possible to connect Gmail and other things
Connected it to Gmail AND said “yeah fuck it, I approve of you using auto mode. Just fuck my shit up”
I knew the leopard was specifically a face eating leopard, and I have seen from news stories that it has eat the faces of many many people. You’ll never believe what happened!
its absolutely wild to give an LLMs write access to your email
My first reaction to learning what OpenClaw is was “that can’t be right”. So absolutely wild that people are giving mostly unmonitored, unlimited access to their PC to language models that can’t distinguish between roleplay and real life
Neither can over 30% of humans.
Where do you all live where humanity proves itself and isn’t dumber than a box of llms?
Hi! I work in a factory. I would trust every one of the incompetent children left behind that keep the door revolving with my machines over an LLM every time. A human can learn, an LLM can’t. If a human fucks up, they do it in a way I can anticipate and account for, and when I tell them what they fucked up, they usually don’t do it again.
I can’t tell if this is all a joke/where the joke ends.
Not a joke, though I think my vocabulary may have obfuscated my point. I’d trust even the most incompetent human over the most competent LLM in my job.
You just pull that number out of your ass? Also, speak for yourself. I don’t see LLM as anything more than a glorified web search
Yeah it’s definitely more like 66%.
For a work email connected to a work LLM, where you don’t particularly care about the privacy implications, LLMs are objectively vastly superior to built-in email search functionality. Especially Outlook.
They said write access, not read
Really? That’s a surprising find. Bcz all of the search features I used to use got significantly worse once LLMs were introduced.
There are some genuine use cases for LLMs. Finding relevant topics of discussion is one of them
It’s amazing how many people deny how useful the technology is simply because they don’t like it.
That can theoretically be done with read only access
Funny, I said similar thing in a different thread and was immediately accused of victim blaming.
Remember kids, if you give full control of you car to someone else you will have a bad time.
Your comment was blaming a woman for a man taking control of her Tesla to terrorize her. An LLM gaining access to the user’s email because the user allowed it is not the same as a man purposefully stalking and abusing his ex-partner in any way he can.
It’s interesting how often you think about being criticized for your sexism. So much so you leave comments like this days later and accuse other users of being me when they rightfully point out the kind of misogyny that is allowed to flourish here with no pushback.
Very interesting.
I’m confused. What is the distinction between victim blaming and warning others to be cautious? Taken at face value, I think it makes sense that giving parental controls to your car is a bad idea. Would be weird to blame the victim but I don’t see him doing that? Maybe I’m missing some English-specific conversational nuance here, since it’s not my first language?
Regarding the case itself, it seems that the woman didn’t actually grant the controls herself and he somehow got it? Does Tesla not have limited driver profiles that you can give to your partner? We don’t have Teslas around here, so I’m curious about what happened there. Is the Tesla app that poorly engineered?
That sentence from ExLisper is only blaming the victim for having given access to her vehicle while she was in a relationship with Pucci and says nothing condemning the actual abuser for taking control of the car without her consent.
It is ultimately the abuser’s fault for accessing the car’s controls and using it to terrify and abuse this woman.
It’s like blaming a rape victim for wearing a skirt out in public. The blame is always with the perpetrator taking advantage of a situation to inflict harm on someone, not on the person who is being harmed.
Is it? I think there are times where I’ve thought “yeah the actual problem here is obvious and well-understood, but let me just remind people of something important/useful”. Reading that comment, I never would have thought, “Oh he’s blaming the victim for granting access to her car”. Could be wrong and maybe I assume too much good will on this platform.
I mean, these EVs introduce a whole new problem of remote access, something new to be careful about… So that’s what I immediately thought of, but ah well.
I think there are times where I’ve thought “yeah the actual problem here is obvious and well-understood, but let me just remind people of something important/useful”.
Doing this in the aftermath of something as horrifying as being stalked and abused for years on end is nothing but victim blaming.
Don’t you think this woman knows now that it was a mistake to trust her boyfriend at the time with that access? Don’t you think she feels deep shame that she missed removing his access to the car, even if she knew how to do that in the first place?
It only works to shame the victim and say “I told you so” after the fact. Especially when the comment is only talking about what the victim should have done to avoid being abused.
You want to know what could have avoided this woman being tormented?
The ex-boyfriend choosing not to access her car and stalk and harass and torture her
Why isn’t the comment “Don’t access your exes shit after you break up no matter how angry you are”?
It only works to shame the victim and say “I told you so” after the fact.
You’d be right if he was talking to the woman, but he’s not. So I don’t see how that makes sense. I guess better framing could have helped, maybe? Or maybe it’s a difference in how different people view social media platforms like Lemmy, just a difference in how comments are interpreted I guess. Text is a terribly limited medium for conversation, after all.
Why isn’t the comment “Don’t access your exes shit after you break up no matter how angry you are”?
Going by numbers, wouldn’t there be more potential victims reading this than abusers? I also don’t think a potential abuser is going to look at that comment and do anything meaningful with it. On the other hand, a potential victim could be more cautious.
