ChatGPT can offer coding solutions, but its tendency for hallucination presents attackers with an opportunity. Here's what we learned.

“* People ask LLMs to write code

LLMs recommend imports that don’t actually exist
Attackers work out what these imports’ names are, and create & upload them with malicious payloads
People using LLM-written code then auto-add malware themselves”

  • rastilin@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    What’s with the massive outflow of scaremongering AI articles now? This is a huge reach, like, even for an AI scare piece.

    I tried their exact input, and it works fine in ChatGPT, recommending a package called “arangojs”, which, link, seems to be the correct package that’s been around for 1841 commits. Which seems to be the pattern of “ChatGPT will X”, and I try it, and “X” works perfectly fine with no issues that I’ve seen for literally every single article explaining how scary ChatGPT is because of “X”.

  • Spy@kbin.social
    0·
    1 year ago

    ChatGPT and similar LLMs don’t really “know” anything. They can only predict what the answer should look like. This means that they can’t be trusted for much and their answers should be reviewed before used, because anything they produce will sound correct by default.

    • activepeople@kbin.socialOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      and the devs copy+pasting code from it probably are aware of that it doesn’t know anything, and that it is likely synthesizing something based on StackOverflow, which they used to happily copy+paste from a few months ago.

      If the libraries ChatGPT suggests work ~80% of the time, this leaves an opportunity for someone to provide a “solution” the other 20%.

      • Haus@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        This is pretty much my experience. It did a pretty good job with the grunt work of setting up a Qt UI in python, but something like 5/20 imports were wrong.