4 ms·

So you blamed the people for not acting “cautiously enough” instead of the people who let things run wild without even a clue what these things will do? That’s

So you blamed the people for not acting “cautiously enough” instead of the people who let things run wild without even a clue what these things will do? That’s wild!

dangus 8mo ago
I don’t think it’s “blame” it’s more like “precaution” like you would take to avoid other scams and data breach social engineering schemes that are out in the world. This is the world we live in and we can’t individually change that very much. We have to watch out for a new threat: vindictive AI.
- bigfishrunning 8mo ago
  The AI isn't vindictive. It can't think. It's following the example of people, who in general are vindictive. Please stop personifying the clankers
  - dangus 8mo ago
    You’re splitting hairs, I’m not assigning sentience to the AI, I’m just describing actions. The point is that scammers will set up AI systems to attack in this way. Scammers will instruct AI to see a person who is interacting rather than ignoring as a warm lead.
  - Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
    Does it matter? "It's not really writing a hit piece to destroy my reputation, it's just a next token generator" But you're still not getting hired.
    - zephen 8mo ago
      Stopping the anthropomorphization of AIs is kind of like fighting a trademark battle. Every time a perceived misuse is noticed, action must be taken! The difference is that the action is taken, for free, by a concerned citizen, rather than by a corporate lawyer. The outcome will be the same. Xerox and kleenex are practically public domain, and AIs will be anthropomorphized. Given that humans have been ascribing intention to inanimate objects and systems since time immemorial, this outcome is preordained. The only thing you can infer from the struggle is that AIs are deep in the uncanny valley for some people.
      - Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
        To amplify: It's also potentially lethally stupid. What if an industrial robot arm decides to smash a €10000 expensive machine next door, or -heaven forbid- a human's skull. "It didn't really decide to do anything, stop anthropomorphising, let's blame the poor operator with his trembling fist on the e-stop." Yeah, to heck with that. If you're one of those people (and you know who you are); you're overcompensating. We're going to need a root cause analysis, pull all the circuit diagrams, diagnose the code, cross check the interlocks, and fix the gorram actual problem. Policing language is not productive (and in the real life situation in the factory, please imagine I'm swearing and kicking things -scrap metal, not humans!- for real too) . Just to be sure in this particular case with the Openclaw bot, the human basically pointed experimental level software at a human space and said "go". But I don't think they foresaw what happened next. They do have at least partial culpability here; but even that doesn't mean we get to just close our eyes, plug our ears, and refuse to analyze the safety implications of the system design an sich. Shambaugh did a good job here. Even the Operator, however flawed, did a better job than just burning the evidence and running for the hills. Partial credit among the scorn to the latter. (finally, note that there's probably 2.5 million of these systems out there now and counting, most -seemingly- operated by more responsible people. Let's hope)
        zephen 8mo ago
        All excellent points. Unfortunately, your most excellent point: > Policing language is not productive goes against the grain here. Policing language is the one thing that our corporate overlords have gotten the right and the left to agree on. (Sure, they disagree on the details, but the first amendment is in graver danger now than it has been for a long time.) https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-graham-introduce-bill-to-sunset-section-230-immunity-for-tech-companies-protect-americans-online https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin...
        bigfishrunning 8mo ago
        > "It didn't really decide to do anything, stop anthropomorphising, let's blame the poor operator with his trembling fist on the e-stop." It's not the operator that's to blame, it's whoever made the decision to have a skull-smashing machine who's only safety interlock is a poor operator with an e-stop. The world has gone insane, and personifying these AI systems is a way to shift blame from the decision makers to "Shit happens shrug". That's what we should be fighting back against
handoflixue 8mo ago
We encourage people to be safe about plenty of things they aren't responsible for. For example, part of being a good driver is paying attention and driving defensively so that bad drivers don't crash into you / you don't make the crashes they cause worse by piling on. That doesn't mean we're blaming good drivers for causing the car crash.
kypro 8mo ago
No blame. For better or worse I just think this is going to be the reality of interacting online in the near future. I imagine in the future stories like this will be extremely common. I could set up an OpenClaw right now to do some digging into you, try to identify you and your worse secrets, then ask it to write up a public hit piece. And you could be angry at me for doing this, but that isn't going to prevent it happening. And to add to what I said, I suspect you'll want to be thinking about this anyway because in the future it's likely employers will use AI to research you and try to find out any compromising info being giving you a job (similar to how they might search your name in the past). It's going to be increasingly important that you literally never post content that can be linked back to you as an individual even if it feels innocent in isolation. Over time you will build up an attack surface which AI agents can exploit much easier than has ever been possible by a human looking you up on Google in the past.

So you blamed the people for not acting “cautiously enough” instead of the people who let things run wild without even a clue what these things will do? That’s wild!

dangus 8mo ago

I don’t think it’s “blame” it’s more like “precaution” like you would take to avoid other scams and data breach social engineering schemes that are out in the world. This is the world we live in and we can’t individually change that very much. We have to watch out for a new threat: vindictive AI.

bigfishrunning 8mo ago
The AI isn't vindictive. It can't think. It's following the example of people, who in general are vindictive. Please stop personifying the clankers
- dangus 8mo ago
  You’re splitting hairs, I’m not assigning sentience to the AI, I’m just describing actions. The point is that scammers will set up AI systems to attack in this way. Scammers will instruct AI to see a person who is interacting rather than ignoring as a warm lead.
- Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
  Does it matter? "It's not really writing a hit piece to destroy my reputation, it's just a next token generator" But you're still not getting hired.
  - zephen 8mo ago
    Stopping the anthropomorphization of AIs is kind of like fighting a trademark battle. Every time a perceived misuse is noticed, action must be taken! The difference is that the action is taken, for free, by a concerned citizen, rather than by a corporate lawyer. The outcome will be the same. Xerox and kleenex are practically public domain, and AIs will be anthropomorphized. Given that humans have been ascribing intention to inanimate objects and systems since time immemorial, this outcome is preordained. The only thing you can infer from the struggle is that AIs are deep in the uncanny valley for some people.
    - Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
      To amplify: It's also potentially lethally stupid. What if an industrial robot arm decides to smash a €10000 expensive machine next door, or -heaven forbid- a human's skull. "It didn't really decide to do anything, stop anthropomorphising, let's blame the poor operator with his trembling fist on the e-stop." Yeah, to heck with that. If you're one of those people (and you know who you are); you're overcompensating. We're going to need a root cause analysis, pull all the circuit diagrams, diagnose the code, cross check the interlocks, and fix the gorram actual problem. Policing language is not productive (and in the real life situation in the factory, please imagine I'm swearing and kicking things -scrap metal, not humans!- for real too) . Just to be sure in this particular case with the Openclaw bot, the human basically pointed experimental level software at a human space and said "go". But I don't think they foresaw what happened next. They do have at least partial culpability here; but even that doesn't mean we get to just close our eyes, plug our ears, and refuse to analyze the safety implications of the system design an sich. Shambaugh did a good job here. Even the Operator, however flawed, did a better job than just burning the evidence and running for the hills. Partial credit among the scorn to the latter. (finally, note that there's probably 2.5 million of these systems out there now and counting, most -seemingly- operated by more responsible people. Let's hope)
      - zephen 8mo ago
        All excellent points. Unfortunately, your most excellent point: > Policing language is not productive goes against the grain here. Policing language is the one thing that our corporate overlords have gotten the right and the left to agree on. (Sure, they disagree on the details, but the first amendment is in graver danger now than it has been for a long time.) https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-graham-introduce-bill-to-sunset-section-230-immunity-for-tech-companies-protect-americans-online https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin...
      - bigfishrunning 8mo ago
        > "It didn't really decide to do anything, stop anthropomorphising, let's blame the poor operator with his trembling fist on the e-stop." It's not the operator that's to blame, it's whoever made the decision to have a skull-smashing machine who's only safety interlock is a poor operator with an e-stop. The world has gone insane, and personifying these AI systems is a way to shift blame from the decision makers to "Shit happens shrug". That's what we should be fighting back against

handoflixue 8mo ago

We encourage people to be safe about plenty of things they aren't responsible for. For example, part of being a good driver is paying attention and driving defensively so that bad drivers don't crash into you / you don't make the crashes they cause worse by piling on. That doesn't mean we're blaming good drivers for causing the car crash.

kypro 8mo ago

No blame. For better or worse I just think this is going to be the reality of interacting online in the near future. I imagine in the future stories like this will be extremely common. I could set up an OpenClaw right now to do some digging into you, try to identify you and your worse secrets, then ask it to write up a public hit piece. And you could be angry at me for doing this, but that isn't going to prevent it happening. And to add to what I said, I suspect you'll want to be thinking about this anyway because in the future it's likely employers will use AI to research you and try to find out any compromising info being giving you a job (similar to how they might search your name in the past). It's going to be increasingly important that you literally never post content that can be linked back to you as an individual even if it feels innocent in isolation. Over time you will build up an attack surface which AI agents can exploit much easier than has ever been possible by a human looking you up on Google in the past.