8 ms·

> "The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended; however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email a

• ludwik 3mo ago
  I like to dunk on Meta as much as the next guy, but I think this makes sense: deterministic verification like this is not, and should never be, the LLM’s job. The tools it has access to should enforce the permissions layer, ensuring that the LLM can never perform actions the user themselves should not be allowed to perform. In this case, the tool failed to do that.
  • jffyjcaa 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • TZubiri 3mo ago
    >deterministic verification like this is not, and should never be, the LLM’s job. 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.
    • ajross 3mo ago
      > But when humans handled it, this was not as much as a problem. 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.
    • ludwik 3mo ago
      Maybe that’s because I work with agentic AI in my day job, but this seems utterly obvious to me: no reasonable person would ever claim that LLMs are better at keeping secrets or enforcing rules than human employees. 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.
  • gavmor 3mo ago
    The overall system that allowed this implementation is accountable. So why put such a fine point on it so as to exculpate the LLM?
    • im3w1l 3mo ago
      It helps set expectations for the fix. "The bug was in an external system that has now been fixed" means we it's probably fine going forward. "The LLM got tricked but we are gonna train it super hard not to do that again" means it will break again and again as people find new angles to convince it.
  • dbbk 3mo ago
    Yes the LLM part is irrelevant here. It'd be just the same if it was a HTML form.
• ofjcihen 3mo ago
  Maybe they’re communicating exactly what it sounds like and are just owning up to being complete morons?
• RobRivera 3mo ago
  Oh it was a downstream dependency. The tool worked, it was the downstream dependency. Glory to Arstotszka
  • moffkalast 3mo ago
    Tool so great, downstream dependency not required! Right?
• Cpoll 3mo ago
  The argument here is that the AI is a glorified input page. The input field asks for your username and email and sends it to a backend function. Such an input page is working as intended. The problem is when the backend function doesn't verify that the email matches the username.
  • jgalt212 3mo ago
    Fair enough. Never trust client-submitted browser form, but always trust LLM-submitted form.
  • dgoldstein0 3mo ago
    Why on earth would the backend function even take an email? 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.
    • duskwuff 3mo ago
      > Why on earth would the backend function even take an email? 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.)
    • Cpoll 3mo ago
      Some sites do this to prevent password recovery spam; you need to provide two pieces of information. Ideally not telling the client if they wrote the wrong email, that'd be a security issue of its own.
    • Polizeiposaune 3mo ago
      When such systems are hooked up to a web page they often will ask which contact should receive the reset code (Pick one: "send text to number ending in -1234" "send text to number ending in -5678" "send email to jo......th@gmail.com" )
• nico 3mo ago
  That sounds a lot like the justifications Claude and ChatGPT give when confronted about something they did wrong, or when asked to provide a customer support response about software issues
  • dmoose 3mo ago
    I've lost track of the number of times Claude has basically said "it was like that when i got here" in the face of a clearly bogus choice and easily disproved explanation.
    • AlienRobot 3mo ago
      They should add a feature called "auto-really" that just automatically says "really?" after the chatbot answers a question to check if it's going to 180 upon this tiniest bit of scrutinity.
      • lou1306 3mo ago
        You joke but this is almost literally what Chain-of-Thought does, at least in the early days. They basically just added "Wait," to the model's output and fed it back to the model iirc
        • AlienRobot 3mo ago
          This can't be a trillion dollar industry...
          • smcin 3mo ago
            "Really?"
          • trumpdong 3mo ago
            It's the ELIZA effect.
    • Chu4eeno 3mo ago
• totetsu 3mo ago
  Then ‘ The tool itself’ was not appropriate to the job in the first place
• laweijfmvo 3mo ago
  so how long was the bug there? was there a way to access it before/without the support agent? it feels like Meta will throw anything under the bus to redirect blame from the AI, because that would be the end of their $600B (depending on “which number you want to go with”) experiment
• nkrisc 3mo ago
  The tool worked correctly and as intended, but due to a bug it did not work correctly nor as intended.
  • thih9 3mo ago
    To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issue was not an AI hallucination inherent of the tool, but a fixable bug. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-maine/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...
    • nvme0n1p1 3mo ago
      In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI. > 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
      • csallen 3mo ago
        I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?
        • albedoa 3mo ago
          There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is saying there is. In fact, it is exactly what is being requested here!
        • nvme0n1p1 3mo ago
          I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
• tomkarho 3mo ago
  How very Wernher von Braun of them.
• TZubiri 3mo ago
  Of course. 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.
• vb-8448 3mo ago
  In italian we say "l'operazione è riuscita perfettamente, ma il paziente è morto" -> "the surgery was a complete success, but the patient died"
  • raffael_de 3mo ago
    "operation successful, patient dead."
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • embedding-shape 3mo ago
    Both this and what Meta said reminds me of "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM) 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.
    • rothfuss 3mo ago
      I was reminded of the Murray Walker quote. “There's nothing wrong with the car except it's on fire”
      • lelandfe 3mo ago
        My dad says, "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" (Usually said jocularly when everyone is at their most upset, e.g. a vacation ruined)
        • RRWagner 3mo ago
          A friend said at one of those moments, "And other than that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?" And the 3rd person replied, "I don't know, I've never seen the play 'Mrs Lincoln'"
        • 3mo ago
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• saltyoldman 3mo ago
  Isn't that exactly what they said when Cambridge Analytics data gathering happened?
• cynicalsecurity 3mo ago
  This-is-fine.jpg
• ChuckMcM 3mo ago
  Read that as "worked as written" and "we disclaim any consequential or incidental damages and do not warrant this software." 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 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc
  • jjmarr 3mo ago
    I've always wanted to expose myself to unlimited legal liability by distributing open source software.
    • Terr_ 3mo ago
      That seems like a false-dichotomy between two extremes when there's all sorts of space in the middle... It's also assuming developer-to-developer tools would have the same rules and exposure as in service-to-consumer. 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.
      • ChuckMcM 3mo ago
        Exactly this. (and it is a false dichotomy to argue infinite liability). 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-Agrees-to-Pay-14-15-Million-Civil-Penalty-for-Failure-to-Immediately-Report-Bacterial-Hazard-with-Pine-Sol-Scented-Multi-Surface-Cleaning-Products https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...
• teaearlgraycold 3mo ago
  > The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended 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
• dboreham 3mo ago
  There should have been a test case for this. There wasn't because most shops don't actually test their product. They do some test theater such as unit testing.
• stephenhuey 3mo ago
  What was that mantra? Something about broken software is what they aim for?
• az226 3mo ago
  I'm sure. It was not working properly nor as intended.
• tyleo 3mo ago
  Error: Success!
  • dylan604 3mo ago
    You must work in QA
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• photochemsyn 3mo ago
  Our autonomous client-assistance system is managed by a teenager that usually makes good decisions but sometimes makes bad decisions and so all the teenager’s decisions are checked by a minder before being implemented. Unfortunately the minder wasn’t paying attention, so, here we are. However, our teenager is a great kid and did nothing wrong! It’s all the minder’s fault. 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.
• hsbauauvhabzb 3mo ago
  ‘Hey Claude, write me a PR statement’
• warmedcookie 3mo ago
  Having had my 2FA Facebook account banned 3 years ago because a bot signed up under my email for Instagram (which I did not have), I can confidently say the email verification issue has been a problem for a long time at Meta.
• xyst 3mo ago
  It’s a public release prepped/reviewed by the in house legal counsel. Don’t read too much into it. Facebook wants to face as little accountability and keep the future class action lawsuit to a minimum.
• trumpdong 3mo ago
  They're saying: our AI worked perfectly, we just prompted it wrong. As you do. All AI failures are caused by bad prompting because AIs are perfect.
• Schlagbohrer 3mo ago
  No no the tool worked fine, it was the system that failed. They blame society, basically.
• endofreach 3mo ago
  Unfortunately this statement will, in spite of what you identified correctly, likely do its job and divert attention from the fundamental issues we are facing with a technology that has already spread further than anyone can control. From enterprise too lay man. The whole world of computing was not built ever expecting software capabilities like this to ever exist. 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.
• ncr100 3mo ago
  "Marge, there's the truth..." (frowns and shakes head negatively) "...and there's THE TRUTH!" (smiles brightly and nods enthusiastically) -Lionel Hutz, Simpsons, Season 9 - "Realty Bites"