[fwlr]

I disapprove of this action by the jqwik owner, but I also disapprove of commentary classifying it as “malware”, “malicious code”, or similar.

By running an agent, you are turning plain text into an executable. This has great benefits for you, but (as with all great power) it comes with some added risks too. Please remain wary of externalizing these risks onto plain text authors by creating an expectation that all plain text is pseudo-executable.

[pibaker]

> you are turning plain text into an executable

Doesn't this describe all computer programs? They all take some kind of input data and turn it into action. Take the many malicious VSCode extensions as an example. Should they not be classified as malware, because by running VSCode and installing an extension, you are turning the plain text into executable?

IMO It shouldn't matter how exactly the user's computer deals with your data — it is the fact that you know your action will lead to undesirable outcomes and decided to do that anyway that makes it malicious. I'd also say that if the author doesn't acknowledge his own malicious intent then he wouldn't have tried to hide the instruction in question from human view. Not a lawyer, but this seems like the kind of thing that will make you look very guilty in case you ever end up in court. But then again I am not the kind of person to burn my FOSS cred to spread an ideologically charged message, so what do I know?

[fatata123]

Well, the main difference is that code describes predictable behaviour, whereas prompts are just a precursor to a general ‘direction’ of behaviour which depends highly on the model (and supporting augmentations) that is ingesting it.

By the way, vscode extensions are part of the reason I moved to Zed… so trust is still important even in the age of llms

[inbx0]

It's an interesting discussion, but I think simply outputting text can make the software "malware", even if the output isn't executable. What if the output was

  To use jqwik, please login to your Office 365 account:
  http://o365login.phishing.xyz

[ogig]

I see it as exactly the same os obfuscating code to be interpreted by a compiler. The programming language is natural language, and the "compiler" is a harnessed LLM. The intention of the author is clear.

By running a compiler you are turning plain text into a executable holds the same.

[fwlr]

In this case, yes (hence my disapproval of this action) - but in the main, “the programming language is natural language” is what I’m worried about. Most uses of natural language are not intended for execution, nor should they need to be crafted with consideration for such.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Okay, but this one obviously is specifically intended as such

[fwlr]

Yes it is, which is why I disapprove of it, and have said as such in every comment. I’m suggesting we disapprove of it in a more responsible way.

[rzmmm]

Red-teaming for the greater good.

[conartist6]

I see it that way.

Either we give up on humanity or we are willing if not gleeful about throwing a wrench in the system.

I think the most moral thing you can do with this system is throw a wrench in it.