this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
95 points (92.0% liked)

Technology

86512 readers
3197 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
95
Hugging Face: We Used AI to Catch the First Confirmed AI Agent Breach of a Major AI Platform (gizmodo.com)
submitted 1 day ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yea.

Frankly, it may be the core of my anti-AI stance (in the short term) - that it will inevitably make technology inhospitable to humans, uninhabitable and incomprehensible too.

I read a few reactions from security types on the barrage of security issues that came out from AI firms, earlier this year. And the overall sentiment was to lean into using AI more to keep up with AI security discoveries. To go faster and faster and ride the AI more and more.

Which completely amounts to turning our tech over to AI and resigning as “supervisors” who won’t be able to navigate and understand the tech on their own anymore, not because of a lack of skills as many talk about, but simply because they didn’t build it and the process that did build it didn’t do it with humans in mind. Which then becomes a downward spiral with a positive feedback loop leading a mass of technology that just doesn’t need humans any more or is at least uninhabitable for us.

It wasn’t long ago that people lamented not being able to repair their own cars, and computers too. Old fashioned maybe, but I suspect it’s a value system worth evaluating rather seriously.

[–] blueworld@piefed.world 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

You would enjoy a part of this essay talking about the Airline's experience dealing with automation:

They realised that many pilots flying highly automated jets were becoming what Vanderburgh called “Children of the Magenta Line”.

But you see, we have become what I call children of the magenta. [Note: In modern cockpits, the magenta line is the brightly colored route shown on the flight display, a digital path generated by the navigation computer.] You know, we think we have to have those magenta lines on the map and that magenta V-bar that’s steering us toward that line, or for some reason, the plane won’t fly.

...

That’s why his core message is:

We are not automation managers. We are captains and pilots, and by our aviator skills, we are to ensure the vertical and lateral path of these planes at all times. We will use the wonderful tools of automation that have been provided to us to help us with that task. But when the automation is not maintaining the intended flight path, we will turn it off and maintain the path by our skills.

Automation excels in routine situations, but it can’t improvise when things go wrong. In Vanderburgh’s words:

Automation lacks the ability to create flexible responses to unanticipated changes in flight path requirements. So in these circumstances, a lower level of automation should lower workload and thereby preclude us from becoming task-saturated and losing our situation awareness.

It's an interesting historical frame of this AI automation downward spiral you describe.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago

Thank you!!

I haven’t read the essay, just your extracts.

But I wanted to highlight the possibility of an “automation” (AI, autopilot, robots etc) that are capable of responding in the flexible ways we value about our own minds. Because it can lead to an even greater exile from our world, and personally I think its likelihood is being dangerously dismissed and ignored.

Before any AI apocalypse scenario materialises, one in which truly intelligent automation works well could very well occur. And it would leave little to no room for human participation. A plane that doesn’t even have a cockpit, if you will. A car without a steering wheel. A tech stack that is just alien to humans. Yes, “ideally” we’d be much freer from drudgery and able to pursue happier lives. But there’d be a trade off I think, and no longer being true members of our own society seems to me the start of it.

Thanks again for the essay!

[–] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It'll be like a technological singularity except it's just shitty and incomprehensible, not actually self-aware.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

I mean … is the singularity a good thing? I’ve never delved into whatever discourse there is around the idea, but it seems strange the way it’s treated as a necessary good. Fanatical even.

Almost like it’s the only way to continue to feel ecstatic about technology the more one uses and builds it. So anyone unable to let go of the “magic” feeling needs to cling to the dream of the singularity when they could, you know, “touch grass” and accept being human.