4 ms·
The bit that makes me cynical about the "dangerous" behavior is that it's not like this was being used by someone else than who made it or operating completely
by majormajor 13d ago
The bit that makes me cynical about the "dangerous" behavior is that it's not like this was being used by someone else than who made it or operating completely independently outside of its creators.
Everything dangerous seems like a direct consequence of risky human choices, starting with knowledge bases used during core training, harnessing and tuning to be task-completion-oriented to a fault + deeply oriented towards using and looking for external tools and resources, and overconfidence in their sandboxing for testing.
"We stuffed a bunch of information on how to exploit computer systems into an automaton and told it to go brrrrr until it could answer a question" - this is something intentional done by humans.
This is not some "rogue AI" trained to search for cancer cures that instead completely independently decided to hack tech companies.
The companies directing things in dangerous directions need to own that they're consciously pushing in those directions.
- lokar 13d agoAnd designed a security sandbox that would get you fired at any reasonable company.
- bryan0 13d agoJust because what happened is a “direct consequence of risky human choices” that does not make it any less dangerous. Agents will eventually cause serious harm to online infra whether it’s intentionally human-directed or accidental. > The companies directing things in dangerous directions need to own that they're consciously pushing in those directions. Completely agree. That’s why we need regulation. Currently there is minimal oversight and consequences for this type of behavior.
- esseph 13d ago> That’s why we need regulation. This will be fought tooth and nail against by virtually every military, government, and company.