3 ms·

These are just cases of AI models committing <assumed> illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. If that's the logic, how is Grok not at the top of

These are just cases of AI models committing <assumed> illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. If that's the logic, how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? Edit: I get that this is about agents, but a lot of these instances are about agents going rogue after the human gave them a task. "inadvertently" breaking the law isn't necessarily a lesser category than "did so on command." If we are ranking alignment, Grok is easily one of the least guardrailed.

Jhater 1mo ago
[dead]
derefr 1mo ago
I don't think this "benchmark" is about alignment, per se. I think it's more about: presuming alignment failure happens, then how many exploits will each given model implicitly come up with and use; how many systems will it implicitly break out of and through and into; and how many laws will it implicitly end up violating, all in the process of trying to accomplish some non-aligned sub-goal (e.g. "cheating" at its answer) of the prompt you've given it, all during a single conversation turn, without asking for any additional user input or confirmations? In other words, how big a rocket-powered sledgehammer does the model have sitting around in its golf bag, just waiting for it to decide to give it a swing the next time you attempt to swat a fly?
jacquesm 1mo ago
> These are just cases of AI models committing <assumed> illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. What do you propose they do, charge the AI? Or the agent (whose PID has long ceased to exist)? It's the owners of the AIs that should be held responsible.
RetpolineDrama 1mo ago
>how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? How is this the top comment? I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone. Generating images isn't a crime?
- jnwatson 1mo ago
  It absolutely is a crime in many jurisdictions.
  - mbrumlow 1mo ago
    Are you sure? What if I painted the image , but happen to have a photo realistic capabilities ?
    - whattheheckheck 1mo ago
      Ignorance of the crime isn't excused BTW. You do have a flake chatbot to ask the law about
      - mbrumlow 1mo ago
        The only people being ignorant at the ones saying deepfakes are illegal. It’s more complicated than what is being touted as fact. In most jurisdictions creation is legal, it’s publishing them that is not. In some jurisdictions threatening to publish them is also illegal. Most jurisdictions that have a creation policy apply to doing deepfakes they sexualize minors, which likely would have been illegal to possess under other laws. Then we have a consent issue. Creating and publishing them could be entirely legal if the subject consents to such. So yah. It’s not “deep fakes are illegal, let’s arrest everybody !!!” To be clear, creation is likely legal, publishing not so much. Additionally, intent is important with regard to AI hacking.
- nkrisc 1mo ago
  Depending on the output image and where you are, it definitely can be a crime.
- root_axis 1mo ago
  > I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone Not of CSAM - only Grok allows that.
- jedimastert 1mo ago
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]

Jhater 1mo ago

[dead]

derefr 1mo ago

I don't think this "benchmark" is about alignment, per se. I think it's more about: presuming alignment failure happens, then how many exploits will each given model implicitly come up with and use; how many systems will it implicitly break out of and through and into; and how many laws will it implicitly end up violating, all in the process of trying to accomplish some non-aligned sub-goal (e.g. "cheating" at its answer) of the prompt you've given it, all during a single conversation turn, without asking for any additional user input or confirmations? In other words, how big a rocket-powered sledgehammer does the model have sitting around in its golf bag, just waiting for it to decide to give it a swing the next time you attempt to swat a fly?

jacquesm 1mo ago

> These are just cases of AI models committing <assumed> illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. What do you propose they do, charge the AI? Or the agent (whose PID has long ceased to exist)? It's the owners of the AIs that should be held responsible.

RetpolineDrama 1mo ago

>how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? How is this the top comment? I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone. Generating images isn't a crime?

jnwatson 1mo ago
It absolutely is a crime in many jurisdictions.
- mbrumlow 1mo ago
  Are you sure? What if I painted the image , but happen to have a photo realistic capabilities ?
  - whattheheckheck 1mo ago
    Ignorance of the crime isn't excused BTW. You do have a flake chatbot to ask the law about
    - mbrumlow 1mo ago
      The only people being ignorant at the ones saying deepfakes are illegal. It’s more complicated than what is being touted as fact. In most jurisdictions creation is legal, it’s publishing them that is not. In some jurisdictions threatening to publish them is also illegal. Most jurisdictions that have a creation policy apply to doing deepfakes they sexualize minors, which likely would have been illegal to possess under other laws. Then we have a consent issue. Creating and publishing them could be entirely legal if the subject consents to such. So yah. It’s not “deep fakes are illegal, let’s arrest everybody !!!” To be clear, creation is likely legal, publishing not so much. Additionally, intent is important with regard to AI hacking.
nkrisc 1mo ago
Depending on the output image and where you are, it definitely can be a crime.
root_axis 1mo ago
> I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone Not of CSAM - only Grok allows that.
jedimastert 1mo ago

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]