An AI agent deleted a fully edited new season of the Swedish TV show "The Challenge Sverige", weeks before its Nov 22 premiere, after its producer let the AI into its server. Show pushed to 2027.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.online/c/[email protected]/p/2029848/an-ai-agent-deleted-a-fully-edited-new-season-of-the-swedish-tv-show-the-challenge-sver
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/a/31oE8A/the-challenge-sverige-raderad-av-ai-bara-veckor-innan-premiarenOpen linkView original on feddit.online
46 replies
Is "AI deleted it" the new "my dog ate it" ?
“Timmy, why did the dog have root access?”
sudo eat -rf ./Homework
sigh
No joke, this is exactly what LLMs will do if they can't do something directly.
This is why I told some colleagues several times to NOT put their user into the docker group AND to set the docker command for Claude at least to 'ask every time'.
That fucker circumvents your guardrails all the time. "Oh I'm not allowed to read a .env file with the harness? Let's check
cat .env!" Yesterday Claude even wrote a little python script to try to print the .env file, because he thought he'd need it to debug a container. (Spoiler - the problem wasn't even with some env vars and also the .env was just filled with dummy values as it is an example from a public repository anyways).Soon it will be "Claude wrote a zero day container escape privilege escalation exploit because it was faster than working within the given limitations". I just don't give any LLM file system access
The article plainly states that the production company says it wasn't AI, but instead that it was human error that led to the data loss.
The AI-thing was merely a rumour.
they say specifically "inte är en ”AI-agent som agerat självständigt”" (double quote). which translate to an "not an "AI agent which acted independently". so depending if that counts as human error or not... still up to to debate. It probably was AI, just not someone shift+delete the wrong folder.
I do however blame the backup crew which definitely should've had their backups in place.
Humans run AI. Even if it was deleted by AI, it's still the responsibility of the person running it.
i would say it's the fault of whoever thought it was a good idea to hook it up to their data. the workers are just doing what they're paid to do and trying to put up with literal insanity or risk termination.
I blame the one who should have set the backups. Even if it was deleted by a malicious actor, they there's no excuse to not have backups
Let's not let the truth get in the way of a sensationalist headline. It only matters that you click.
Agent deletes my data is the new dog ate my homework.
I would be so fucking mad if I worked on this and some producer just gave AI direct access to the only copy.
I would be so mad if I was a producer, and there was only one copy of anything important.
Whatever the agent was actually doing, the real failure is that it had destructive write access to the only copy of finished work. That's a permissions problem before it's an AI problem — no automation, human or otherwise, should be able to hard-delete production assets without a human confirming the destructive step.
The fact that the season is just gone also tells me there was no immutable backup or soft-delete tier behind it, which is rough for a broadcast workflow where the footage is irreplaceable. Agents are getting broad tool access by default right now, and this is the cautionary tale for giving them delete rights alongside read rights.
Shouldn’t be giving them any rights at all
You are a fucking AI bro. Get out of here.
Permissions that ai can access and change lol
Get out of here loser
I'd assume they're using cloud, so permissions are scoped per service. For example, if they used aws, they could have S3 create but no delete, and the role has no permissions to IAM (aws equivalent of permission policy)
If they just have some linux server then they can manage with users and have write permissions restricted to owner of the file.
They probably just let AI assume Admin and let it do whatever because nontechnical people don't understand least permission
How do you not have backups of this?
In 1997 a company I worked for "lost" a month of fully rendered 3D video. Big deal you're saying, but 30 days of a rendering farm in 1997 was worth a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Somebody formatted the drive by accident.
This shit happens all the time, it's appallingly common. I guarantee some idiot somewhere in the chain of command said no we are not budgeting $1,000 for a couple RAID arrays or backup drives
Happened to toy story 2 as well
https://www.newsweek.com/lightyear-producer-credited-saving-toy-story-2-after-deletion-1680072
No backups? Maybe I can understand not having full duplicates due to the cost, but surely it was on a system with at least snapshots in place or something right??
Watch LGTM video
But they can restore from backups. They backed up their data, right?
Good. The more thins shit happens the more people will rip relying on it and see it as the unreliable bullshit that it is.
I wonder how many similar stuff need to happens before people realize they still need to keep their brains on when using AI and know what they're doing.
Also, no backups? Bush league bro
Oof.
As someone who edits my own videos for YouTube, can't imagine how much work that was. Just gone. Poof.
Oh well. Don't use bullshit AI next time.
håhåhåhå
The headline is an example of a new grammar structure, the agentic passive voice.
Nope.
He’s the show’s host. So no, its not an interesting choice, its the obvious choice.
The person you're responding to seems to be a repeated race baiter on here.
I'm reading in translation where he is credited with "leading" the program, which could be host or could be showrunner.
As showrunner, he'd have more call to be there. As host, even less.
"Someone majorly fucked up and also here's a picture of someone" is kinda not great journalism, regardless.
He’s the public face of the programme as the host. As in, when the show is mentioned, its his face people recognise. Its standard unremarkable journalistic practice. Paranoia is not a good look.
Can confirm, he is the host.
I don't mind that he's black, but he is cringe af as a television host. Not professional or eloquent at all. Not funny, but definitely trying his hardest to be so. Lame jokes that he laughs at himself, sometimes the only one who laughs, which is... uuughhh.
I think he is there to appeal to a certain subdemographic of youth, and that is definitely not me. 😬 I can imagine certain people like him for his performance though.
"Not professional or eloquent at all. Not funny, but definitely trying his hardest to be so. Lame jokes that he laughs at himself"
Sounds like the timeless qualifications for being a reality show host tbh
Well, we hold people to a higher standard on certain channels. A few select channels we expect a higher standard of entertainment because of their decades long history of quality. But uh, yeah. I guess this guy's an acquired taste.
That's cool that there are still standards for any channels there, lol. What's the subdemographic you think he's appealing to?
Being the host makes it very not likely that he was the one responsible for managing the footage since those are two different jobs. That makes it unfortunate, if not borderline-libelous, to put his face on this article and give the impression that he was the one responsible for the fuck-up.
Its simply not reasonable for anyone to get the idea that the host was responsible because they are pictured in the article.