4 ms·

If this is your standard, I challenge you to name one currently operating business that isn't criminally negligent. I'm sure there's tens to hundreds of millio

by ben_w 2mo ago

If this is your standard, I challenge you to name one currently operating business that isn't criminally negligent. I'm sure there's tens to hundreds of millions of them amongst the 37% of the world with no internet connection, but actually finding them listed on the internet will be somewhat of a challenge.

hilariously 2mo ago
No, the entire marketing campaign for these models is "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software" - if you don't air gap such a capability you are inherently allowing shit to go down, any other interpretation is "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test".
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software" No it isn't. Random people on sites like this mock them as if they're talking about having godlike powers. Each new model is "merely" a step up from what came before, the steps are frequent and rapidly improving, and just recently (in more than one AI company) crossed a threshold where that improvement made the tests dangerous. But even well before "godlike"*, there's plenty of research about how to cross air gaps. > "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test". Such binary thinking. It's very easy to say things are "obvious" after the fact. People do that all the time, e.g. how the Bay Of Pigs invasion was never going to work, or like the Zune wasn't a good product-market fit. Oh the stories I could tell if not for the NDAs. * whatever that's supposed to mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40874779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40874779
mcmcmc 2mo ago
Who said criminally negligent? If the whole point is testing its exploitation capabilities and you don’t want it exploiting the environment to gain internet access, that’s why you air gap, to remove the possibility
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > Who said criminally negligent? Me. I am saying that the act of taking this standard seriously, the standard "there is no such thing as bug-free software", would classify just about every business and individual criminally negligent. After all, there's a lot of 0-day bugs in all the software we all use, and the exploitation of these bugs does get in the news due to all the harm that results from it. This poses a risk to basically all businesses.

by ben_w 2mo ago

hilariously 2mo ago

No, the entire marketing campaign for these models is "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software" - if you don't air gap such a capability you are inherently allowing shit to go down, any other interpretation is "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test".

ben_w 2mo ago
> "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software" No it isn't. Random people on sites like this mock them as if they're talking about having godlike powers. Each new model is "merely" a step up from what came before, the steps are frequent and rapidly improving, and just recently (in more than one AI company) crossed a threshold where that improvement made the tests dangerous. But even well before "godlike"*, there's plenty of research about how to cross air gaps. > "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test". Such binary thinking. It's very easy to say things are "obvious" after the fact. People do that all the time, e.g. how the Bay Of Pigs invasion was never going to work, or like the Zune wasn't a good product-market fit. Oh the stories I could tell if not for the NDAs. * whatever that's supposed to mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40874779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40874779

mcmcmc 2mo ago

Who said criminally negligent? If the whole point is testing its exploitation capabilities and you don’t want it exploiting the environment to gain internet access, that’s why you air gap, to remove the possibility

ben_w 2mo ago
> Who said criminally negligent? Me. I am saying that the act of taking this standard seriously, the standard "there is no such thing as bug-free software", would classify just about every business and individual criminally negligent. After all, there's a lot of 0-day bugs in all the software we all use, and the exploitation of these bugs does get in the news due to all the harm that results from it. This poses a risk to basically all businesses.