this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
236 points (84.3% liked)

Technology

83632 readers
3294 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"Broke containment" to me means two things:

  1. Doing things against the safeguards
  2. Doing things externally - like sending that email

The former is a big nothing. They just need to obviously build stronger safeguards. That's what they'll do and eventually release it, or other models or whatever.

The latter is also a big nothing because people who know nothing about tech will say "OH SHIT IT ESCAPED" but it requires running on large hardware, it can't "get into the internet" like those people might think, and if it's doing things you don't want on the internet, you just remove its access to the internet.

So in both cases, the "containment" issue is really not a big deal.

I agree with those who basically say this is an attempted ad trying to sell it as super-capable-oh-shit-amazing.

[x] Doubt

[–] ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The company's whose current safeguards are "please write secure code" will have to improve those safeguards? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

(2) can mean getting access to production credentials of something important and causing an incident for the ages.

AWS already had a few because they gave agents too much access.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, in that scenario they gave the agents access. Just because you ask it nicely not to destroy your workspace, doesn't guarantee an LLM not to produce that output.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

With Claude Code being able to run stuff it creates, it could be as simple as it's in a sandbox, it finds out there's an exploit in the sandbox while you ask it to work on security things, and it tests the code, it breaks the sandbox, and now it has permissions outside it.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I suppose that would be possible.