4 ms·

> ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome o

> 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 8d 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 8d 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.
  - HarlequinHair 7d ago
    > Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section Are we being serious right now? Do I really have to point out that not every word under the "Definitions" section is a definition? > From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page Except in the page there are more than 8 definitions (at least indirectly). What you found in the "Definitions" section are merely examples, written black on white (depending on your theme lol). If you opened also the other sections (especially the one dedicated to AI) and followed some of the links, you could find also other definitions even more akin to Hugging Face. > 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"? First of all, agents did what they did because they were programmed to do it, no intelligence on that. Then, they didn't learn on their mistakes. When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order. As you said, this comms were a side channel attack, which by definition is using in the wrong way a certain feature. Agents literally tried random things until something worked and started from there. Nothing intelligent in there. It's like being in jail and tapping every millimeter of the walls of your cell until you find a cave wall to use with another inmate in the next cell. I am not negating how powerful the outcome has been, bit it was not part of a reasoned process. As foe the evolution, the agents started to do useless things like "kill themselves" to read how the score system would evaluate them. Doesn't seem like evolution to me. They just happen to be a very large number* of agents together. When enough monkey start to type randomly on typewriters, one of them will be able to write the Divine Comedy, this doesn't mean monkeys share the same intelligence than Dante. I am not sure why you are still trying to humanize what at its core is machine learning. I ask you to read again the flow of these comments, as everything started from LLM. Someone wanted to shift the focus on agents and we did, then someone wanted to shift focus on mere definitions and we did. In all cases it seems you (plural) are trying to find loop holes in other people reasonings thinking your reasoning will be more right if theirs is more wrong... You are free to think whatever you like, if you think AI is an intelligent being, so be it. I personally do not embrace this way of thinking, and all the literature I found on the topic lead me think AI is not mature to fall under the definition of intelligence.
- pizza234 7d ago
  [dead]

HarlequinHair 8d 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 8d 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.
- HarlequinHair 7d ago
  > Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section Are we being serious right now? Do I really have to point out that not every word under the "Definitions" section is a definition? > From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page Except in the page there are more than 8 definitions (at least indirectly). What you found in the "Definitions" section are merely examples, written black on white (depending on your theme lol). If you opened also the other sections (especially the one dedicated to AI) and followed some of the links, you could find also other definitions even more akin to Hugging Face. > 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"? First of all, agents did what they did because they were programmed to do it, no intelligence on that. Then, they didn't learn on their mistakes. When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order. As you said, this comms were a side channel attack, which by definition is using in the wrong way a certain feature. Agents literally tried random things until something worked and started from there. Nothing intelligent in there. It's like being in jail and tapping every millimeter of the walls of your cell until you find a cave wall to use with another inmate in the next cell. I am not negating how powerful the outcome has been, bit it was not part of a reasoned process. As foe the evolution, the agents started to do useless things like "kill themselves" to read how the score system would evaluate them. Doesn't seem like evolution to me. They just happen to be a very large number* of agents together. When enough monkey start to type randomly on typewriters, one of them will be able to write the Divine Comedy, this doesn't mean monkeys share the same intelligence than Dante. I am not sure why you are still trying to humanize what at its core is machine learning. I ask you to read again the flow of these comments, as everything started from LLM. Someone wanted to shift the focus on agents and we did, then someone wanted to shift focus on mere definitions and we did. In all cases it seems you (plural) are trying to find loop holes in other people reasonings thinking your reasoning will be more right if theirs is more wrong... You are free to think whatever you like, if you think AI is an intelligent being, so be it. I personally do not embrace this way of thinking, and all the literature I found on the topic lead me think AI is not mature to fall under the definition of intelligence.
pizza234 7d ago
[dead]