3 ms·
1. Someone prompts it in a way that causes it to use tools (e.g. code execution) to try to break out. 2. It breaks out and in the process uses the breakout to
by vidarh 2y ago
1. Someone prompts it in a way that causes it to use tools (e.g. code execution) to try to break out.
2. It breaks out and in the process uses the breakout to trigger the spread of and further prompts against copies of itself.
Current models are still way too dumb to do most of this themselves, but simple worms (e.g. look up the Morris worm) require no reasoning and aren't very complex, so it won't necessarily take all that much when coupled with someone probing what they can get it to do.
- nerdponx 2y agoYeah, but real worms are also a lot simpler than humans, and yet do all kinds of surprising and sophisticated and complicated things that humans can't do. A tool built for a specific purpose can accomplish its task with orders of magnitude less effort and complexity than a tool built to be a general-purpose human-like agent. I could pick out all kinds of useful software that are significantly simpler than GPT-4, but accomplish very sophisticated tasks that GPT-4 could never accomplish.
- vidarh 2y agoYes, but that's not really the point. The point was simply to point out how you can potentially trigger havoc with current LLMs. A lot of time people do damage to systems just because they can, there doesn't need to be a good reason to do so.