Re: AI slops from Eve

[Joe Krause <r29jk10 () gmail com>]

I'm not looking for this to be posted onto the list, or to continue the
discussion, but if it is posted, all that people need to know is that
cock.li is a mail hosting provider that houses a lot of script kiddies, so
almost any email coming from that domain should be treated like spam.

Joe


On Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 10:49 Solar Designer <solar () openwall com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13:07PM +0200, Martin Hecht wrote:
> > On 10.09.2026 19:45, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Please refer to computer algorithms as "it", not "who."
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out. We (the humanity) shall not forget what we
> > are and how they (these models) have become that powerful: Some smart
> > guys (humans) have developed them - and also methods to teach them, some
> > other guys (also humans, maybe already AI assisted) have developed
> > powerful hardware to perform all the computations. But in the end,
> > "it"'s still an algorithm.
>
> Oh, looks like I've triggered so many of you.  Using the boat analogy, I
> was being generous considering Eve is someone's creation (even if
> perhaps also AI assisted), but you all have convinced me that I
> shouldn't have been.  Point taken, and no need to continue posting on
> this sub-topic, please.  With my moderator hat on, I may start rejecting
> such repetitive postings.
>
> > I think, looking at the recent incidents of those algorithms escaping
> > from their contained environments, we (humanity) have to think about how
> > we plan to deal with this beast. These algorithms are capable to escape
> > from contained environments (maybe these containment concepts weren't
> > suitable), they are capable to collaborate on platforms that are
> > publicly available (in the assumption to be offered to humans, not to
> > algorithms).
> >
> > Our society strongly depends on connected IT systems comprising our
> > infrastructure nowadays. Now, these powerful algorithms are able to find
> > tons of vulnerabilities in software, and they are acting on the same
> > public internet to which many critical systems are connected.
> >
> > I'm concerned if we (the humanity) manage to close all those
> > vulnerabilities before these algorithms take over essential parts of our
> > infrastructure, or if we find ways to really contain the algorithms
> > reliably (which seems to be close to impossible, given the fact that
> > there are also bad actors around). Sorry for being slightly off-topic,
> > but I believe protecting critical IT systems as good as we can will soon
> > become more important than ever before.
>
> Many of us are concerned, but without a focus on open source the above
> is just off-topic here.  So no follow-ups please, unless someone has
> something constructive and OSS focused to add - such as on approaches,
> projects, or tools that can help OSS projects manage this load and risk.
>
> > To come back to the topic: Referring to the algorithms as "it" can help
> > keeping the mental distance and avoiding misunderstandings (especially,
> > when those statements are cited. Then it's clear what we are talking
> > about.
>
> Agreed, and as Ellenor pointed out we may try using "which".
>
> > And as the models improve more and more, it might not be obvious
> > upon first contact - so one might first talk about "him/her", but when
> > it becomes obvious, that "it" is actually a model, one should switch to
> > talking about "it" to make this clear.
>
> That's tricky because "becoming obvious" isn't instant nor reliable,
> sometimes I'm just 90% sure and I don't want to offend a real person.
> But anyway, no further discussion on this in here, please!
>
> Alexander