No, its not just a dumb network configuration. They are not treating this with the seriousness it needs to be treated.

It’s a combination of a complete containment failure on top of the utter incompetence by the engineers to identify the breach and stop the product from doing cybercrime on the public, open internet. Heads need to roll for this.

I don’t care if it’s easy to miss. If you have a billion dollars and can’t offer a proper containment protocol, it’s not the problem of the public who has to suffer the full blow if your product goes on a rampage on the open internet for days. It’s not like this happened in a millisecond.

Instead, they go on a PR tour. Of course, the message is look what our product can do. Otherwise, they would have pushed for criminal charges against the people responsible for all of this by themselves. You do the crime, you do the time. The defence that the AI did it, is not going well in front of a court.

This is a good time to put one or two engineers behind bars to teach the rest that serious threats to the public have serious consequences, and you get charged like you did the crime yourself if the system you are responsible for starts doing illegal stuff.

What other precedent is set here otherwise? People in AI labs trying to play god are outside the law?

> This is how you get companies to stop disclosing. I don't think you realise how easy it is to just not notice things.

If you have technology this dangerous that it poses a threat to public safety, you need to stop using the technology until you can prove this won’t happen again. Then be put under strict supervision, everything needs to be logged, recorded and looked at.

If your toddler just almost burned down the house, do you give him another set of matches and hope for the best?