The headline is misleading, but the "article" is only five screenshots of Twitter posts. Someone used AI to decrypt the Samsung TV's firmware and found always on listening, classification, lots of privacy nightmares. Then their (the hacker's, not Samsung's) OpenAI got suspended for "Cyber Abuse".
Right, but still: OpenAI provided a service and it's up to them to determine acceptable use. Samsung sells a $3000 (or actually $2999,95) TV and you get big brother watching you.
Surely acceptable use is not exposing crooked corporations that are using spyware to listen to you and your children.
We don't really have any idea what was in his sessions or why he was suspended. It might have been a false positive in their automated system, or maybe he ranted at the model about how he was going to "destroy" Samsung with his findings and the automated systems took that literally. There are tons of examples around of people using models for reverse engineering, so we know it's unlikely that alone was the reason.
They don't know that. It's the hypocracy of not using their service to infringe on someone elses copyright. The only way Compaq could legally have a PC BIOS is by having one team reverse engineer the original and describe what it does and another team reimplement it.
Yes, it's completely hypocritical because of how LLMs are built. That doesn't change the fact that if you're offering a service online, you'd try to prevent abuse in order not to be held liable.
You can do the same with LLM. Have one session document something, and other session write up an implementation, with nothing but docs shared in between.