I wouldn't ignore single GPU local hosts running Qwen3.8 on ollama, either. There might be a lot of those worth pwning.
I wouldn't ignore single GPU local hosts running Qwen3.8 on ollama, either. There might be a lot of those worth pwning.
The OP seemed to imply that the LLM itself could decide to apply the exploit.
This was and remains the main real risk with AI - this is what "alignment" was about before it was co-opted to mean "obeying specific instructions of the vendor and the operator, against end-user wishes" it came to mean today, which is a related but different problem.
And, in the past few weeks, it's literally been demonstrated, too: put an LLM in a Kobayashi Maru scenario, drop the usual bolted-on crude safeguards, and a SOTA model will absolutely cheat, hacking and exploiting things as needed, including third-party infrastructure.
(Also let's not forget the under-reported point that, in OpenAI / HuggingFace debacle, the model did in fact find the answers on HF servers, so its approach worked.)
Because LLMs as they are already do things like power concentration, resource gathering, avoidance of termination, deceit/lying, and general misalignment.
The paperclip maximizer is the common story used here, but there are a lot of lesser versions of it that don't end up with the universe converted to paperclips. Simply giving an LLM a task it can't accomplish can be enough to send it off from what you expected as it finds unexpected way to attempt to complete the goal.
> go fetch me a cup of coffee
Second prompt to a humanoid llm:
> go fetch me a cup of coffee without killing anybody