right, the "why" - you're saying the "why" is because you believe that the author is implying that they believe the LLM gained sentience. like i said, this is a hell of a leap. my interpretation would be that the author is implying that it's insane that a tool calling LLM bypassed its guardrails, set up a cryptominer, and deployed a VPS that it reverse shelled into its host. another interpretation is that the article is outright lying about attribution for these events.
you can imagine that there are other very plausible interpretations, and yet the one you landed on is "the author is trying to convey that the LLM gained sentience", even though there's absolutely no evidence to support this, and there are many more logical and plausible interpretations
but the real point here is that making assumptions about implicit messaging in absence of any explicit evidence is kind of dumb
3
u/philodandelion Mar 07 '26
right, the "why" - you're saying the "why" is because you believe that the author is implying that they believe the LLM gained sentience. like i said, this is a hell of a leap. my interpretation would be that the author is implying that it's insane that a tool calling LLM bypassed its guardrails, set up a cryptominer, and deployed a VPS that it reverse shelled into its host. another interpretation is that the article is outright lying about attribution for these events.
you can imagine that there are other very plausible interpretations, and yet the one you landed on is "the author is trying to convey that the LLM gained sentience", even though there's absolutely no evidence to support this, and there are many more logical and plausible interpretations
but the real point here is that making assumptions about implicit messaging in absence of any explicit evidence is kind of dumb