alt Hacker NewsWhile everyone has been worried about it becoming too easy to hack into things, something I've been worried about for the last few years is it becoming too hard to hack into things. Right now, all of these things are being broken into to be jailbroken and such, but the companies building these hardware devices have access to the models too.
It seems like a distinctly possible and sad world that they might get so much better at keeping their devices locked down by hardening them with the support of LLMs that future devices become an absolute bitch to jailbreak, even moreso than they were before.
Replies
Nah, we just start opening the phones, cutting off some PBC patches, soldering some wires, and intercepting/synthesizing signals live. Keeping phones locked is just a zero sum game.
If by "secure" you mean keep owners from using a device in whatever way they wish, then I hope whoever made that decision fails, and I wish them discomfort and inconvenience as karma for the attempt.
Is it just entirely unprofitable to sell hardware devices unsubsidized without locking it all into restrictive ecosystems & services?
I would think the more viable path (in the US) would be the legal system. i.e. Amazon pressuring frontier labs to add "safeguards" to protect their IP.
if so that seems to make 'right to repair' all that more of an imperative.
I'm all for allowing tinkering on a Kindle, but my pacemaker is off limits
What you’re essentially saying is right now we have weak human written code that might have some vulnerabilities, but something written by a frontier LLM may not have those.
[dead]
I don’t think it’s symmetrical. As a company, in a lot of cases, you get one shot to secure the thing. And then all owners collectively then get infinite time to jailbreak it.