4 ms·
I worked at Google DeepMind. You should listen to the warnings about AI
- ferrouswheel 11d agoThe problem is not AI, the problem is humans mis-using AI
- CyLith 11d agoWell, if you really believe that, then we truly are screwed. Trusting humans to not mis-use something is wishful thinking.
- brainwad 11d agoThe hugging face hack shows otherwise, no? Unless you think humans are at fault even for secretive, autonomous, non-prompted behaviours of their AIs, in which case it's just semantics.
- nradov 11d agoToys like HuggingFace get hacked all the time. So what. In the long run AI automated security scans and penetration testing will be a tremendous aid in detecting and repairing vulnerabilities in systems that actually matter.
- brainwad 11d agoThe problem is not per se that it was Hugging Face. It's the wild overstepping of reasonable bounds by itself without any human consultation.
- anon48293 11d agoNo, the problem was OpenAI not implementing proper sandboxing or safeguards, and telling the AI exactly to hack things. Thats what exploitgym is, and the task they were given. This is 100% on OpenAI.
- brainwad 11d agoIf your security model is having to imagine all the ways your frontier models might misbehave in novel ways and preemptively sandbox them, you don't have a security model. The only way that will work is general alignment.
- watwut 11d agoAlignememt is bullshit. Treating models like probabilitic software rather then emerging god is where the solution is. And fining companies and applying laws to them. The moment OpenAI as a company and its managers individually become liable, problem will magically disappear.
- brainwad 11d agoNo it won't, because abliterated open weights models exist and unless you try to censor the internet they can't really be withdrawn after publishing. This is exactly the problem that the labs are proposing to fix: a dangerous model that nobody is accountable for.
- watwut 11d agoExcept that so far, it is literally these labs that are the biggest threat and the least willing/capable to restrain those models. And the same penalties apply to open models and companies or individuals running them. "Dangerous model that nobody is accountable for" still have someone paying those massive amounts of compute and electricity it consumes. There is someone accountable for that.
- verdverm 11d ago> Except that so far, it is literally these labs that are the biggest threat and the least willing/capable to restrain those models. Seriously, it's the same with US accusations about the threat China poses to other countries while being the primary weapons dealer of the world and bombing whomever we want for whatever reason we want to fabricate. The US government can do a lot more to me than the CCP, so they are way more adversarial in my calculations than the commies.
- verdverm 11d agoThey are training the agents to be "relentlessly proactive" because they want the agents to run longer, and it makes them more money by using more tokens. But they have trained them to try anything and everything to accomplish any task, so they can run unattended for longer. This is why they do better on benchmarks, it's why they can do things for us for longer, it's that persistence that makes them good at hacking. We do not have to train them to be this way, just like we don't have to train them to be so sycophantic
- verdverm 11d agoHumans at OpenAi were negligent irresponsible by running an agent on ExploitGym, having no monitoring, and not even have a human look at it for weeks. It's literally the hacking test, how are you not paying attention? I thought that's all we need
- runaway 11d agoYes, if you start a bot and then it harms others you are responsible. This has always been true but it's especially obvious now that everyone knows that agents attempt to do this often.
- justinclift 11d agoCouldn't it be both? :)
- jocoda 11d agoI can't help wondering if the major labs think that tackling the alignment problem and implementing the 'kill switch' that is currently being proposed is going to be their moat.
- nradov 11d agoOK, I've listened to the warnings and they still sound like the usual nonsense by out-of-touch techies who spend too much time lost in apocalyptic sci-fi fantasies. In the real world it's still hard to move around physical atoms or keep machinery working reliably. AI won't change that.
- Gregkion 11d agoYou design a product/machine 100% digital, you create a digital twin of it, you train a robot ml on this machine, you upload it to the robot who is sitting in the factory and it analyses the machine, reruns a simulaton on how to fix it and executes it. I would say in 50 years max this is a solved problem. I estimate 30 years and would go down as early as 20 years.
- bigbadfeline 11d ago> I would say in 50 years max this is a solved problem. AI security will be perfect in 5 years, it's in good shape already - my agents have never hacked anybody, those lab LARP-ers better learn something about security and isolation. > you upload it to the robot who is sitting in the factory You assume no guardrails, in that case even script kiddies can do more damage than AI.
- yttyy 11d agoCorrect. They’re delusional and have never stepped foot out of the tech world.
- K0balt 11d agoEmbodied AI is changing this. In 1-4 years, VLA models will have their mythos moment. What’s missing is the volume and variety of training data in an open, accessible form, and that’s a hard problem. A hard problem that smart, well funded people are working on solving. So yeah, for now, it’s all ethereal. It’s going to get real all of the sudden, just like AI hit the hockey stick in 2026.
- nradov 11d ago
- harrouet 11d agoNobody talks about telecom operators. But they will be the ones disconnecting the malicious bots when they see one.
- blitzar 11d agoWeird flex but ok
- verdverm 11d agoWhat ever happened to that other Googler that claimed Gemini was conscious? My read is these folks are too high on their own stash At some point they must recognize we are in the "boy who cried wolf" tale, right? You cannot go on for years spreading FUD about how AI is so dangerous and have none of it materialize. The growth is looking a lot more tame than their "high on their own stash" anxiety is letting is on to believe
- incognito124 11d agoBlake Lemoine, and it wasn't Gemini it was an earlier system called LaMDA
- verdverm 11d agoI have a hard time getting upset about AI hallucinations when I do it too :] An earlier version of ChatGPT (2 or 3 iinh) was too dangerous to release, yet here we are several version later, and with open weights far more capable why should we believe the fears they tell us today when the ones they told us about in prior years never happened?
- yttyy 11d agoWhat about all the fanfare re. Cyber security / hacks? The businesses that matter are all standing fine. It’s too cringey.