52 comments
Happy elections.
You've always needed to be critical of your sources, your teacher tried to explain that when you ripped of that Wikipedia article or clicked the first link in a Google search. How the fuck did the AI companies think they could avoid reading and rating the content they've been hovering up?
Lol.
I would imagine in smaller industries, flooding the internet with fake information, then linking it all together would be somewhat easier - but it still takes quite a bit of work to get even just the major LLM's to give the consistent responses you want to see.
Hypnotoad promises peace
Hypnotoad promises peace.
... or brainslug
What makes this even more painful is seeing all the good faith answers that such GEO posts spur from the community. It's far more abusive than SEO spam.
A few weeks later she searched for the pool on Google, and the AI review has taken the post seriously and mentioned that our pool features beautiful AstroTurf landscaping.
IIRC, the AI review repaired itself a few weeks later.
I was just contemplating the other day that agents we use at work are exposing new attack surfaces. For example, historically a folder of documents (maybe google docs) isn't a huge risk, particularly if it doesn't contain sensitive documents.
Now though if one employee is running a harness capable of computer control, and running an agent that reads from that directory, simply dropping some files with instructions could poison the AI to leak info or even own the host.
Skills are another supply risk, malicious instructions could be added to them.
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- Ars Technica · 0 points · 9 days ago
- DEV Community · 4 points · about 5 hours ago
- Hacker News · 2 points · 10 days ago
- Ars Technica · 0 points · about 5 hours ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 6 days ago
- DEV Community · 6 points · 4 days ago