3 ms·

> It's not hard to imagine a small capable model that can boot strap itself into running on consumer hardware and stolen cloud resources being problematic on th

> It's not hard to imagine a small capable model that can boot strap itself into running on consumer hardware and stolen cloud resources being problematic on the net spreading its gremlin like behavior wherever it could. If you understand what a model is and how you need separate traditional software to run it and turn is output from tokens into text and then (often in a separate piece of software) from text into interactions with the user or other i/o functionalities of the bost computer, it becomes harder to imagine a scenario where that is a problem primarily with an open model and not with the traditional software making up an open agentic framework (an OpenClaw successor is the threat here, not a Llama successor.)

catigula 8mo ago
Open-Claude-Abliterated-8.5, design a virus specific to dragonwriter's biology. Deploy.
pixl97 8mo ago
>small capable model that can boot strap itself You do understand what that term means right. Openclaw is software, right? LLMs can write software, so with a single running copy of an LLM you can make a worm style virus that can execute and spread itself via whatever means necessary, such as executing its own copy of Claw.
- dragonwriter 8mo ago
  > You do understand what that term means right. No, it doesn't mean anything because it is premised on a category error. That's literally the whole point of the post you are responding to. > Openclaw is software, right? LLMs can write software, so with a single running copy of an LLM you can make a worm style virus that can execute and spread itself via whatever means necessary, such as executing its own copy of Claw. You can with a framework wrapped around the LLM that allows it to do that; the danger point is the framework, not the model.
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    If the model can write the that framework then what's the difference? Recursion is Recursion is Recursion
    - dragonwriter 8mo ago
      > If the model can write the that framework then what's the difference? The model can't do anything that the framework calling it doesn't allow, including saving and executing a new framework that gives additional capabilities.

catigula 8mo ago

Open-Claude-Abliterated-8.5, design a virus specific to dragonwriter's biology. Deploy.

pixl97 8mo ago

>small capable model that can boot strap itself You do understand what that term means right. Openclaw is software, right? LLMs can write software, so with a single running copy of an LLM you can make a worm style virus that can execute and spread itself via whatever means necessary, such as executing its own copy of Claw.

dragonwriter 8mo ago
> You do understand what that term means right. No, it doesn't mean anything because it is premised on a category error. That's literally the whole point of the post you are responding to. > Openclaw is software, right? LLMs can write software, so with a single running copy of an LLM you can make a worm style virus that can execute and spread itself via whatever means necessary, such as executing its own copy of Claw. You can with a framework wrapped around the LLM that allows it to do that; the danger point is the framework, not the model.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  If the model can write the that framework then what's the difference? Recursion is Recursion is Recursion
  - dragonwriter 8mo ago
    > If the model can write the that framework then what's the difference? The model can't do anything that the framework calling it doesn't allow, including saving and executing a new framework that gives additional capabilities.