7 ms·
This seems... dangerously careless. What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely? Sure humans also do this, but
by jadbox 4y ago
This seems... dangerously careless. What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely? Sure humans also do this, but we're talking about a new level of 0day exploit carried out at scale. Sure, maybe it won't, but do you trust a hallucinating, left-brained, internet-trained intelligence to be strictly logical and mindful for all it's actions that is taking self autonomously (as this project aims to do)?
- roflyear 4y ago> What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely? How would GPT-4 make this more likely or scalable?
- jadbox 4y agoI'm not really picking on GPT4, but My point really applies to any LLM on autonomous Internet connected mode.
- roflyear 4y agoYeah, I don't mean to be specific about GPT-4 either, it's just the most powerful model so often convenient to use as an example.
- ALittleLight 4y agoThere is the possibility of API upgrades at OpenAI flipping this from "not dangerous" to "dangerous". If the AI just needs some amount of intelligence to become dangerous, then it may cross that threshold suddenly - and with OpenAI developers unaware that their next round of changes will be automatically deployed to an autonomous agent and with the auto-GPT runners unaware that new changes may substantially increase the power of the model.
- roflyear 4y agoI'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence? To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"
- visarga 4y agoHave you seen what they can do? /s
- roflyear 4y agoYeah next time someone says this to me in earnest I'm going to lose my mind.
- ALittleLight 4y agoLanguage models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question as to whether or not language models have any form of intelligence has been definitively answered - yes, they can and do - by existence proof. What definition or description of intelligence do you use such that you doubt that language models could have it? Would you have had this same definition in the year 2010?
- mjr00 4y ago> Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.
- mythrwy 4y agoWould you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"? Because from where I sit it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
- jstanley 4y agoIt doesn't. It makes the consequences more dramatic, if it (accidentally, even!) works out how to create its own successor, because at that point the genie is out of the bottle and you won't get it back in.
- roflyear 4y agoYeah maybe there is that possibility, but there is the possibility of a person doing that too. GPT-4 is probably less probably to be able to do that than a person.
- visarga 4y agoNeeds a big honking datacenter or billions of compute credits and safety for 6-12 months.
- tanseydavid 4y agoDoesn't Alpaca seem to suggest that assumption is no longer true?
- visarga 4y agoAlpaca rides on LLaMA. And LLaMA was trained on 1T tokens for a long time. The fine-tuning takes one hour with low rank adaptation. But pre-training a new model takes months.
- sva_ 4y agoNot sure if OpenAI has shut down any 'experiments' before, but this might be a candidate.
- WinstonSmith84 4y agoit seems to query the internet, get a response, send it to OpenAI wait ... get the response back from openAI, repeats. Any old school security scanner is 1000x more efficient, not to mention that API requests to OpenAI are quite limited. What's eventually dangerous is that it may execute scripts on your own machine, so if it were to do some funky things, that could be rather the danger .. for yourself
- mrfinn 4y agoWait for somebody mixing the concepts of "virus" and "AI". And we better begin to prepare some kind of AI sentinels because the question is not "if", but "when".
- ModernMech 4y agoAccording to Agent Smith, virus + intelligence = humanity.
- mrfinn 4y agoI don't remember Mr. Smith mentioning anything about intelligence :-)
- tanseydavid 4y agoAccording to Bill Hicks, virus + shoes = humanity.
- vbezhenar 4y agoAs long as AI is available to general public, I can guarantee you that there are hundreds of developers trying to let GPT to take over the world by providing it all the APIs it asks for. I'd work on it myself if I would knew enough about it and would have enough free time. Asking millions of humans to be responsible is asking water to be dry. It should either be regulated to hell or we should accept that it'll escape if it's even possible with current technology.
- roflyear 4y agoShould we regulate everything you don't "[know] enough about it and would have enough free time. [to learn about it?]" Isn't it silly to jump to these conclusions when yourself are admitting you really don't know anything about the tech?
- visarga 4y agoNo, it's a legit concern. Both things will happen - there will be abuses, and there will be good uses. It will be a complicated mess, like viruses interacting with anti-viruses, continuous war. My hope is on AGI learning to balance out as many interacting agents.
- roflyear 4y agoSure there will be abuses, but not in this way, I don't think. GPT at this point isn't capable of creating novel computer viruses. If you want to scrape random websites and have GPT hammer at them for old vulnerabilities, I think you could get that to work, but to what gain? You'd be spending a crap ton of cash on API requests and compute, and people do this without GPT obviously. Cost is probably not worth it here for attackers. Then, I'd hope OpenAI would have some way to detect this and shut these people down. I doubt they do right now, but that'd be my hope ...
- vbezhenar 4y agoWe should regulate everything which could cause a mass havoc. Like some chemicals, like radio-active isotopes, like nuclear research, like creating viruses. Is AI in the same category? Some respectable people think so.
- ActorNightly 4y agoI honestly appreciate new woke meta of fearmongering against sentient AIs. It's a welcome break from the anti capitalism woke meta.
- reb 4y agoBreaking news from HN user ActorNightly: Anti-AI Visionary Elon Musk is a woke soyboy now. Will antifa's reign of terror ever end?
- ActorNightly 4y agoThis reminds me very much of the time when someone from NASA came out with an article about them working on a hypothetical warp drive, and then everyone literally believed that we are going to have a FTL warp drive, because people from NASA were working on it.
- chasd00 4y agoSame screeching and pearl clutching as always. Covid has wound down, trump is out of office, Twitter is still there (unfortunately). People have to have something to get hysterical about and this is it for now.
- amrb 4y agoGiven ChatGpt lowers the entry to programming, I'd be worried about teenagers writing malware sooner than AI supremacy.