Re: AI slops from Eve

[Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>]

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