Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Incident Database

incidentdatabase.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: AI Incident Database

#41

Post by sebzim4500 »

JohnFen wrote: post #30
sebzim4500 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is voluntary, but people training models are incentivised to follow the convention because it's one way to avoid accidentally including some benchmarks in the training data.

That sounds like nonsense. Surely it would be easier for the spiders to simply respect robots.txt?

(1) What makes you think that the benchmarks will be blocked in robots.txt? E.g. if it is uploaded to arxiv or github I don't know how you would stop it from being indexed (2) There's probably loads of content blocked by robots.txt that people want to train on.

Re: AI Incident Database

#42

Post by smcgregor »

detrites wrote: post #9

Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?

(I am from the org behind the Incident Database)

I agree about it being a stretch, but we err towards indexing boundary cases. This one turns on whether you would consider the web application as being part of ChatGPT or not. In aviation, there are many systems that are part of safely flying from point to point that are not part of the plane itself. The control tower, the runway markings, and the processes built around these things. While the ChatGPT web application is not the model underlying the ChatGPT front end, it is part of the whole intelligent system.

More information: https://incidentdatabase.ai/editors-guide/

Edit: On Slack we considering downgrading this one to the second tier status, which is an "issue," but our "issue" definition typically differentiates between events (a harm happened) and non-events (a harm may happen). This doesn't quite fit here. We have robust editor discussions around these ontological problems and are developing the ruleset in response to challenges. We aim for inter-rater reliability via the editor's guide. More details are here https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10384

Re: AI Incident Database

#44

Post by CobrastanJorji »

sockaddr wrote: post #13
detrites wrote: post #9

Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?

I see what you mean but… think of a conventional security issue around an AI like you would a chemical spill. Even though the failure may have been something boring like a bad seal, we could still call it a “hazardous chemical incident” or such.

Right, but if they accidentally drop a bookshelf on a guy working at the hazardous chemical plant, that's not a hazardous chemical incident.

If OpenAI feeds their staff lunch that's gone off and everybody gets sick, is that really an AI incident?

Re: AI Incident Database

#45

Post by inopinatus »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #20
q_andrew wrote: post #19

An interesting idea for a website to track this stuff, especially because so much of the AI space is filled with vaporware and theoretical scenarios. One nitpick -- this incident is caused by traditional video game AI, not to be confused with the neural stuff that's causing waves right now: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/38/

Yeah, this site needs a clear definition of what is an AI upfront. Good luck with that.

Their minimum standard for inclusion appears to be any collection of if-statements.

Re: AI Incident Database

#46

Post by paddw »

smcgregor wrote: post #39
Simon321 wrote: post #3

"Loom incident database" By the Ned Ludd organisation History repeats itself

I am one of the people behind the website and have been building AI "looms" for 13 years. We are working to make AI safer as our goal -- we are not working to smash the looms. Without the FAA and similar orgs/efforts, it is unlikely that millions of people would be flying today.

Are you not worried at all that strenuous pushing for regulation will cause unintended bad outcomes? I look at the recent history of technical legislation and see little reason to believe that regulation would result in the outcome of an enlightened bureaucracy.

Re: AI Incident Database

#47

Post by JohnFen »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #41
JohnFen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like nonsense. Surely it would be easier for the spiders to simply respect robots.txt?

(1) What makes you think that the benchmarks will be blocked in robots.txt? E.g. if it is uploaded to arxiv or github I don't know how you would stop it from being indexed (2) There's probably loads of content blocked by robots.txt that people want to train on.

> if it is uploaded to arxiv or github I don't know how you would stop it from being indexed

Ah, that makes sense. This specific thing still smells like baloney to me, though.

> There's probably loads of content blocked by robots.txt that people want to train on.

In what use case? If they want to train their own GPT, then it doesn't matter if robots.txt blocks it. If they want to have it included in the general data that things like OpenAI ingest, then why not just unblock it?

Re: AI Incident Database

#48

Post by j2bax »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #44
sockaddr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean but… think of a conventional security issue around an AI like you would a chemical spill. Even though the failure may have been something boring like a bad seal, we could still call it a “hazardous chemical incident” or such.

Right, but if they accidentally drop a bookshelf on a guy working at the hazardous chemical plant, that's not a hazardous chemical incident. If OpenAI feeds their staff lunch that's gone off and everybody gets sick, is that really an AI incident?

Is the AI making the menu?

Re: AI Incident Database

#49

Post by sockaddr »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #44
sockaddr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean but… think of a conventional security issue around an AI like you would a chemical spill. Even though the failure may have been something boring like a bad seal, we could still call it a “hazardous chemical incident” or such.

Right, but if they accidentally drop a bookshelf on a guy working at the hazardous chemical plant, that's not a hazardous chemical incident. If OpenAI feeds their staff lunch that's gone off and everybody gets sick, is that really an AI incident?

No, I don't think those things are similar at all to what I suggested. I would not add those things to the list.

Re: AI Incident Database

#50

Post by [deleted] »

smcgregor wrote: post #42
detrites wrote: post #9

Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?

(I am from the org behind the Incident Database) I agree about it being a stretch, but we err towards indexing boundary cases. This one turns on whether you would consider the web application as being part of ChatGPT or not. In aviation, there are many systems that are part of safely flying from point to point that are not part of the plane itself. The control tower, the runway markings, and the processes built aroun…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN