4 ms·

> It would be exactly like looking at aminoacids and state that intelligence can't develop from them. We are not talking about what could develop from what we

> It would be exactly like looking at aminoacids and state that intelligence can't develop from them. We are not talking about what could develop from what we have today. We are talking about what we have today. The focus is not whether intelligence could develop or not from aminoacids. The focus is on the fact that aminoacids are not intelligent. Maybe in the future we could develop real intelligence starting from the current implementations of AI, but for sure we are not there today. We need definitions? Let's start small, ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence We can start from here, open every link we find and decide what works for us. Conclusions drawn by scholars, psychologists, learning researchers, younameit, etc. revolves around the following concepts: ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. There is of course space for artificial intelligence. These broader and more general definitions of intelligence stop at concepts like elaborating data to reach an answer. Concepts like adaptability or evolution are somewhat lost or diluted to adjust the meaning for these new technologies. > AIs are currently fulfilling several aspects of intelligence and thinking, by any defition of intelligence. In the linked article there are dozens of definitions linked, and in most of them the current state AI is not considered to have intelligence. Having half of the property is not enough. I can jump, that doesn't make me a basketball player. Arbitrarily deciding to consider those definitions not valid or "human-centered" because they do not agree with your point of view is possibly worse than cherry picking. It's like asking to change the definition of a word on a dictionary because you do not agree with the meaning.

anonymars 13d ago
> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. So, like the HuggingFace attack? https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... (briefer takeaways: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-attack-surprised https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-atta...) For example: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#july-8th-9th-phaseone10841-establishes-the-primary-message-board-and-agents-collaborate-to-reverse-engineer-their-flags https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... or https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#agents-had-diverse-reasons-for-thinking-that-attacking-hugging-face-would-be-useful,-and-most-wanted-information-about-the-scorer https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...
- HarlequinHair 13d ago
  Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right. My comment has been way more than just the part you quoted, and I linked an article that gives dozens of different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face. For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent. Also, pay attention about thinking that Hugging Face is intelligent just because it started to destroy everything it could to reach its goal, because the message it implies is dangerous. Thanks for the good read, I already had them :)
pizza234 13d ago
> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly. You're seriously misinformed about the state of AI in this point in time. Refusing to read (technical) articles from the people directly involved (METR, in this case) is inexcusable.
- HarlequinHair 13d ago
  > Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly. It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. On the contrary, I linked an article that gives dozens different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face. Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right. For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent. If you think I am misinformed, I will let you think it. Honestly, the power of our comments are the messages we convey and how information dense they are. If you need to discredit me to prove your point, I don't have anything else to add...
  - anonymars 13d ago
    > It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence and then claiming "I didn't give any definition" is indeed funny. Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? Breaking out and inventing a new side channel for communicating with other agents via cache keys to coordinate their efforts is at least arguably an evolutionary step since that allowed them to transcend their original capabilities. From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page--you're free to develop your own definition if you'd like, of course; it's not as though the ones listed were appointed by God--one could argue that the Hugging Face attack didn't strictly demonstrate "achiev[ing] goals in a wide range of environments" but that's splitting hairs, and I'm not going to take a definitive position on whether it acted "to avoid getting trapped" as such (but I think there's a strong case to be made that breaking out of the sandbox is just that). But it surely demonstrated initiative, adaptability, dealing with its environment, using information and conceptual skills, goal-directed adaptive behavior, and so on. If you're not going to provide such a definition yourself, I don't see how you've demonstrated that the Hugging Face attack is contrary to the definitions you did point to.

anonymars 13d ago

> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. So, like the HuggingFace attack? https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... (briefer takeaways: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-attack-surprised https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-atta...) For example: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#july-8th-9th-phaseone10841-establishes-the-primary-message-board-and-agents-collaborate-to-reverse-engineer-their-flags https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... or https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#agents-had-diverse-reasons-for-thinking-that-attacking-hugging-face-would-be-useful,-and-most-wanted-information-about-the-scorer https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...

HarlequinHair 13d ago
Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right. My comment has been way more than just the part you quoted, and I linked an article that gives dozens of different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face. For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent. Also, pay attention about thinking that Hugging Face is intelligent just because it started to destroy everything it could to reach its goal, because the message it implies is dangerous. Thanks for the good read, I already had them :)

pizza234 13d ago

> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly. You're seriously misinformed about the state of AI in this point in time. Refusing to read (technical) articles from the people directly involved (METR, in this case) is inexcusable.

HarlequinHair 13d ago
> Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly. It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. On the contrary, I linked an article that gives dozens different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face. Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right. For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent. If you think I am misinformed, I will let you think it. Honestly, the power of our comments are the messages we convey and how information dense they are. If you need to discredit me to prove your point, I don't have anything else to add...
- anonymars 13d ago
  > It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence and then claiming "I didn't give any definition" is indeed funny. Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? Breaking out and inventing a new side channel for communicating with other agents via cache keys to coordinate their efforts is at least arguably an evolutionary step since that allowed them to transcend their original capabilities. From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page--you're free to develop your own definition if you'd like, of course; it's not as though the ones listed were appointed by God--one could argue that the Hugging Face attack didn't strictly demonstrate "achiev[ing] goals in a wide range of environments" but that's splitting hairs, and I'm not going to take a definitive position on whether it acted "to avoid getting trapped" as such (but I think there's a strong case to be made that breaking out of the sandbox is just that). But it surely demonstrated initiative, adaptability, dealing with its environment, using information and conceptual skills, goal-directed adaptive behavior, and so on. If you're not going to provide such a definition yourself, I don't see how you've demonstrated that the Hugging Face attack is contrary to the definitions you did point to.