I'm not sure "worked properly" and "as intended" accurately describe this situation.
I also can't believe the people who were involved with writing this response from Meta, didn't realize how obviously bad it sounds. It's like there is no humans working and writing there anymore.
(Usually said jocularly when everyone is at their most upset, e.g. a vacation ruined)
Don't know if AI is to blame, but I've used to see these kinds of nonsense post-mortems even in the pre-llm era, and it's always due to some internal fighting ongoing between various departments.
"You, alright! I learned it by watching you!"
I agree with you that in a week nobody will be talking any more, but I'm pretty sure it's a GDPR data breach, and they can have some trouble within EU.
Yeah, they probably don't give a fu.. about EU, but if the response doesn't matter at all why did they spend time on it?
In news media, sure. But in IT teams around the world people will be referring to this (the exploit opening stupidity) for years as how NOT to do things. :)
Meta has never been a place for people with empathy to thrive or succeed. They literally enabled a genocide. Despite being warned by internal employees, profits were more important.
> The creosote in toothache drops administered to a New York boy cured the pain, but killed the boy. This recalls the entry in the register at Bellevue Hospital, which reads; "Operation successful. Patient died."
The Argonaut, San Francisco, December 22, 1883.
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
> The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
> Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address
This isn't (just) a validation issue, and shouldn't be at the harness level.
Having a support agent likely made it easier to enumerate the vuln, and certainly made it easier to scale out exploitation once it was discovered.
But it’s irrelevant, outside of PR. We know at least THREE bad components to this process and they were constituent parts.
Humans support agents certainly fall prey to social engineering all the time, but I can’t think of a case where it was done on this scale so easily.
But it's important to acknowledge that there was a 'bug' in an underlying tool and not in the chatbot, and still PIP/fire those responsible for publishing the chatbot and exposed an otherwise internal tool to the public, and not those that introduced the 'bug' to an internal tool.
Also, why fire anyone after a single mistake?
So yeah, firing somebody or a group of people is on the table. Especially when like 10% of the company was fired last week for unrelated reasons. If you are gonna do it, fire the people who slash the value of your company by billions of dollars.
There has to be a level of fuck up where a resignation is appropriate, maybe this doesn't meet your bar, but surely you recognize that there exists a limit of incompetence that proves that one is not up to the demands for the job.
I used to be on your camp, blameless postmortems, the truth is more important than assigning blame and in all likelihood it's a systemic problem. But with time I realized two things, 1 there's actually incompetent people, 2 if you wrongly get blamed and you don't blame someone else, then it's your head that rolls, hate the game not the player, you have to assign blame to someone else if you are accused.
While the "stochastic parrots" thing is a bit overblown, IME most LLMs tend to surprisingly different responses even without changing the context, especially if they're hallucinating or doing something "wrong".
I pointed out that updoc is nonsense and asked why it didn't catch that. The answer was that it was my fault for giving it bad info.
The problem is when the backend function doesn't verify that the email matches the username.
Or perhaps said different: use the submitted info to identify the account; send any sensitive messages (recovery codes, password resets whatever) to only the contact info on file. If the chat bot can send such email it should do so via an API that sends only to contact info on file for the associated account and not to an email that's provided by the bot.
In principle, it could be designed to do so to handle cases where a new email address has been confirmed out of band, e.g. for an account representing a company or a political office. But that's a relatively unusual situation, not something you'd want to be available to every user writing in. (Even if you had an all-human support department, this sort of functionality would only be available to a select few agents.)
(Pick one:
"send text to number ending in -1234"
"send text to number ending in -5678"
"send email to jo......th@gmail.com" )
Unless the backend was _also_ vibe-coded, in which case it is still an AI problem.
I continue to believe we could fix a lot of things in the US if we updated the UCC[1] to disallow 'disclaiming liability on software used in a product.'
[1] Universal Commercial Code -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc
If I sell a physical motor (let alone plans for one) I'll have some liability for things like it Not Exploding. If someone buys a dozen of those motors to assemble a tragically unsafe "rollercoaster" of their own design and construction, I'm almost certainly not responsible for any terrifying decapitations.
In other words, most of the world already does not rely on the issuance of "Get Out Of Infinite Liability Free" cards.
To Terr_'s point, if you were publishing open source you would also publish exactly the things you intended it to be used for and anything else would violate your warranty (possibly implied) that it does what the documentation says it does.
There is a huge amount of tort law that covers exactly when it becomes a problem for you the creator vs you the user in your own project. And that liability is also based on once you know something bad could happen you make an effort to notify people[1].
[1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...
Nobody's going to be distributing software on the internet for free if the cost of insurance alone precludes that.
Guess what, I'm not liable for the damage. Why? Because I immediately responded once I knew that it could, I made a good effort to warn people who might already have the code of the risk, and I made it clear in the code that this risk is there.
Ever wonder why you get a booklet of warnings when you buy a product with even really stupid things like "Don't clean with gasoline" warnings? That's because once you have discharged your duty to warn you are not longer liable in what happens if someone ignores your warning.
The flip side is also true, you cannot say in your product both "Hey this product does these cool things" and "We don't warrant the product to actually do anything." This is especially true if there is money involved (like your user paid your some $ for the product.) There is always an implied warranty that the thing will do what you says it will do, which exists as long as the user has heeded all your warnings.
No bro - open source and the internet existed long before SV tech parasitism did and will exist long after.
When I reflect back to someone making this argument by saying, "So your argument is that you make your living as a pick pocket, but if pick pocketing is made to be illegal, you won't be able to make a living." Which of course would only be true if they only thing they could do was 'be a pick pocket'. Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed. All the arguments that "you'll put all coal miners out of business if you require only green energy" And yet the people, the miners themselves, will likely be fine. The firms might not, but there are other firms that could exist.
This isn't a new problem, or one specific to this web site, although it does get disproportionately hit because so many technology companies saw what Google started in the 2000's and said, "Man there is soooo many ways to get money for this." rather than, "Is this a reasonable way to make money? Sure it is 'perfectly legal' but is it right? Is it moral?" The type of person who thinks that something is "Only illegal if you get caught" is neither moral nor particularly concerned about what is right. And we got a lot of that type.
Thank you for putting this so eloquently into words. This rigid thinking is also common in topics such as working conditions, collective bargaining, on-call time, parental leave, healthcare, and effectively (unintentionally or not) shuts down conversation.
I've come to realize the objections from people who think this way all effectively boil down to 'Be grateful for what you have because any alternative would be worse.' But if you pry and ask that they expand you'll find there really isn't any there there, because it's black and white thinking. It isn't rooted in fact, it comes from fear. I sure hope we haven't collectively forgot how to even imagine a system that functions better than the one we have today.
1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore this must be done!
"a FOSS author did something wrong and was found to be liable"
In fairness, I not sure the earlier commentator really understood what they were saying, at least not as far as legal liability is concerned.
The FOSS author simply wrote some code and shared it right? That is their 'action' can you think of ways that does direct harm, which is to say they published their code, and with nothing else happening someone got harmed? One way that can cause harm is the FOSS author publishes a trade secret[1] or access credentials of a third party. In both cases they could (and would) be sued by that third party. But absent that, I'm having a hard time coming up where simply the existence of most code causes someone else harm.
So to get to harm we have to add another person, that person somehow applies the code, and in that application harms another person. Our FOSS author might be sued as being contributory because the person who caused harm might not have done so if they didn't have access to the code. To prove that, the plaintiff would have to prove that the FOSS author knew that the code could cause harm if used in this way, and encouraged or otherwise abetted the person who did harm to use it in doing the harm. That can be a hard standard to reach[2].
In your car example, it would be challenging to prove that Daniel Stenberg wrote curl so that you could use it to brick car infotainment systems. But it would be easier to prove that a manufacturer that incorporated FOSS code and didn't check their system for risks like this should be found liable.
Liability accrues first to the party that did the action. Secondary liability can reach out to suppliers[3] of things used in that action. This is also civil law rather than criminal law and so it works a bit differently in terms of evidence standards and penalties.
[1] We can make a joke here about badly formatted code, but hopefully we're in a agreement so far. A real example was the DVD decoding software that included the key for decoding encrypted DVDs.
[2] Not that people might not try, its too easy to sue. There have been cases where someone wrote some code that was later used in a weapon (and example might be Ardupilot software in drones used to kill Russians). But even in that case, the courts in the US at least have consistently found that if it is not the primary purpose of the software to do harm, then the author is not liable.
[3] Unless you're a gun company as Gun companies have managed to keep themselves from being found liable for people using their guns to do harm. But there is also lots of interesting case law there too which might help inform.
Now if I were running a small business I might choose not worry about the tail risk of my product causing a few million dollars in harm or (more likely) I'd have insurance to cover that. But someone tossing code along the side of the road presumably doesn't have (and doesn't want to think about) insurance and meanwhile the tail risk has become nearly unbounded thanks to the effectively arbitrary number of deployed instances.
I think there's also some benefit to having a big fat NO WARRANTY clause at the top of the license file because it might give you a better chance of a summary dismissal (or even deter the other party from trying in the first place) since as we all know the process itself can be ruinous even if you eventually prevail.
Which is all to say that I share your view. Willingly negligent vendors that cut costs by omitting security while viewing the resultant mishaps as an inescapable reality ought to be held accountable. But I think it would also be a good idea to add an official exemption for software that's made available free of charge. It seems like if you pick something up off the side of the road any mishaps that follow from that should necessarily fall to you.
"No problem: just don't get sued" only works if legal battles are free and/or the law makes it so blatently obvious that you're not liable that nobody would bother to try.
Right now, any lawsuit against me can be dismissed on summary judgement because even if my software causes harm, that's not a legal wrong to the extent I've disclaimed liability.
If you adopt any fact-specific standard for liability, that needs to be adjudicated in a trial. The legal fees alone would surpass the actual liability.
That creates huge leverage for the party with more resources. That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give.
I think you're assuming some kind of worst-possible outcome that hasn't been proposed and is unlikely to be enacted. To quote from earlier in the thread: "Disallow disclaiming liability on software used in a product."
I don't think that changes your hobby work on a rational-math library or an MVC framework or whatever, since you aren't making a business out of it. It will affect that large enterprise if they roll out their new product "Yearning 4 Mines: Gatcha Gig-work For Kids."
But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem. That is, the humans did the job, because they recognized the need to do that job.
Sure sometimes accounts could get recovered if a human was tricked, but evidently it was easier to trick the LLM in masse than humans.
In fact it's arguably a feature. The ability of support staff to short-circuit nitpicky rules when there's an obvious external validation happening (e.g. you're on the phone with a user who's presenting ID in real time and correlating it with previous use of the account, etc...) makes for better data quality and happier customers.
Obviously, yes, you can then human-engineer an authentication breach. But that was very difficult, because people are "common-sense careful" in a way we haven't been able to tease out of AI yet.
This notice is not about comparing humans and LLMs. It seems that the system was designed in the only reasonable way: with a deterministic permissions layer separate from the agent. But that layer failed to work properly.
So the notice is comparing the difference between how the system was supposed to work and how it actually worked in reality. Normal post-mortem stuff.
The author of the post is close to the author of the AI code on the org chart
> however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify
The author of the post is far from the author of this "code path" on the org chart
P.S. Would you like to have our teenager manage your system too? Terms are reasonable! Of course you accept all liability, so better get a good minder - and no, don’t use an AI as the minder, that just introduces a new failure mode.
What I gather is that this internal tool was used by human support agents, and it was their responsibility to verify the email adresses and general validity of a claim.
But when implementing AGI TM that was overseen, maybe the oversight in the separate code path was a 'bug', but the mistake was making the chatbot obviously, if the separate code path had a bug, then it had become ossified into a feature, and it was internal, not exposed to the public.
This is an external communication, to save face sure, but if this is the internal excuse, it would be absolutely the wrong RCA and it reads as if the one who made the mistake is not admitting they made their mistake. Which to be honest, just making the mistake is enough to get fired, but not admitting it is enough to get ultra fired.
Don’t read too much into it. Facebook wants to face as little accountability and keep the future class action lawsuit to a minimum.
As you do. All AI failures are caused by bad prompting because AIs are perfect.
-Lionel Hutz, Simpsons, Season 9 - "Realty Bites"
I am not saying it's like a nuclear bomb. Rather like the first guns brought into fights the others were perfectly prepared for ti fight with swords and didn't even know yet, about this fascinating invention called a gun. Sounds interesting. Let me inspect it. Oh wow, that's interesting technology. What happens if i push that thing back? Will it re... oops...
Thank god that we have honourable people like altman, zuckerberg, musk. Imagine how bad all this would turn within the next few years, if major decisions were made by self-serving, delusional, greedy egomaniacs...
Of course currently let's first hope those wars and all the tension in societies all over the world, in war or peace, won't explode into something really, really bad. Looking at history, i fear we see how social tension on large scale over time... not saying it's not obvious to almost everyone. So well, let's just keep hoping. Maybe throwing blackbox AI tech into the mix, would surprise and change course of history. Actually, while i am thinking about it, i think i just changed my opinion into the opposite position, lol. Honestly, if it's 50/50 that this will lead to the worst possible outcome intensified, it's still better than just checking boxes following the "humans slowly stumbling into near-extinction experiences 101" handbook. Because just according to that, we're lucky if we're off by 10 years. There must be a big change in humanity and how the world is currently constructed, for all this leading to anything other than what we should expect from history. If we kept all nations busy with huge technological issues, that made all of their personal lifes so complicated, turn every elitists luxury into a burden, busy to defend what they own, while they can't realize, that normal life has changed so much, they now are the ones, frozen in life. They would have no time for conflict.
This sounds totally logical. In any other scenario, it would be pretty insane what we are all doing and entertaining (including me, top10 hypocrite).
I fear it's too late to turn ship, yet we still can jump ship.
---
Especially because now thinking about the thoughts that just went through my head, maybe (technological) disruptions are actually disrupting. But not a status quo of an economic model.
But a pretty clear loop of human nature and "humans in societies". And the more often we disrupt this loop, the more time we get before it's ready to start over again.
And now we have something that has the potential to change all fundamentals so much, that all the major conditions inside this loops iteration become meaningless. The environment changes so much, the state of the checkboxes gets emptied. Cache invalidated. Indices are gone.
Oh, i know how dumb this sounds. I am not even trying to claim anything. I didn't even think about it before, this is just a note of the words that i typed, almost on autopilot. No idea if i believe a part of this could be real. But even thought, just as a mere fictional story, it already entertained me.