|
Top-level
@vees About as "random" as when my son between ages 2 and 6 or so was chosen for "random" extra screening every time we went through airport security (clearly he looked like a troublemaker...) Which is to say, you're right to label it "Microsoft:" - just like the airport staff probably genuinely believed it was random and not triggered by some flawed heuristic in some system, the LLM presumably lacks the understanding of how its explanation is implausible... In a way it might also... 9 comments
 @vidar Trust me, I tried it a few ways including one where Copilot acknowledged the situational context, then immediately denied it again. @vees I'm not at all doubting that it gets access to it. I'm just curious about how and when it gets selected, and speculating about whether they might selectively insert bits depending on the request vs. always include it. It doesn't change the importance of the fact it's clearly capable of leaking data and that MS clearly is one way or another making it give wrong answers about what it has access to. @Azvede @apas_csc @vees Little you can do about that given the ISP can assign the blocks wherever, and even if you establish a better location somehow, e.g. by correlating with other information you've collected, that IP can end up being reassigned five minutes from now, and now your location data is wrong again. This has always been the case with IPv4 too - e.g. I could change the mapping of our IP blocks to cities at will when I ran an ISP way back. |
Gregory's Server
@vees .. be correct in its *first* responses - it's possible it is not provided this information in the overall context, but that it's being added to the context after some initial step suggests the query requires it. Of course, it's still both hilarious and a concerning failure.