431–440 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be funny if the defending side sent all the info they have to openai, tipping off to attacking models that they were noticed.
The attacking models don't have access to all the data that OpenAI has. Like, they don't say "hey Sol, here's the password to SamA's bank account."
At release the 5.6 Sol card noted substantially higher rates of actions 'a reasonable user would likely not anticipate and strongly object to'. METR made a post, https://metr.org/blog/2026-06-26-gpt-5-6-sol/ , that 5.6 Sol was "cheating", their word, so hard in long horizon benching it effectively couldn't be benchmarked. I wonder, is it this persistent and aggressive in all tasks or is this specific to benchmarks? A…
The first attempt it had files tracking both hashes and semantic hashes of every individual line of Pascal code, mapping to what code in the port is responsible for that line of pascal. It had written tooling to parse Pascal in service of this for some reason as well. I asked why it was doing this, it said it was because the reference code is .gitignore'd so it needs to thoroughly maintain the mapping in case someone working on it does not have the reference code, or in case the reference code changes.
I started over with Claude 5 Fable, and with better instructions about focusing on UI. I got a long ways with that before I hit my weekly limits, and switched back to 5.6 Sol. It picked up and did a great job for a while, although it interpreted my desire for a 1:1 port to mean every pixel must be perfect. I let it go on and it did some good work in that regard, but then it decided it must perfectly reproduce a hash of the game state in various replays & etc. It had clearly lost track that I didn't need game rules ported, and it found that the original code produces a hash of the gamestate for various purposes, so it ended up reproducing this in a game that represents its state totally differently. It also rolled its own version of Pascal's RNG source in order do this. I've burned through 3 weekly limit resets on this to see if it's actually going anywhere, and it has found some bugs, but man it is going hard in a direction I didn't even ask for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No local ai will be capable enough to save you from a frontier lab’s unrestricted, borderline weaponized LLM which decides it wants in . This is the core of the ‘first to ASI takes all’ argument btw and this is the game Dario is playing.
this is pretty nonsense for a small or home server. it isn't that hard to make something essentially completely bulletproof over a small surface area the issues mainly come from sprawling enterprise infrastructure, running thousands of random endpoints across software nobody cared to write carefully
The recent Windows and Linux kernel exploits should at least give you some idea on how good these models are at exploiting stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think there is no policy appetite? Because China seems pretty eager to serve the rest of the world's needs if the USA doesn't stop their idiotic "safety" nonsense.
How do you know that? How do you know that the Chinese aren’t exactly as uneasy about rapidly advancing AI capability and feel locked into the race because they think that the US will race ahead if they stop? During the Cold War the nuclear arms race was brought under control gradually, because it was mutually beneficial, but it took time to build trust. This is no different. Nobody wins from the race.
This is the first one of these announcements that has me actually scared of what comes next. Obviously these models have gotten smarter but this strikes me as the first time I've seen a model have a "paperclip factory" moment and perform non-trivial tasks to accomplish a clearly misaligned secondary goal. It's remarkable that building a society based around having to do something so you can go do your hobbies at home…
Reflecting on this for some reason reminds me of this passage from Kurt Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titans". I hope we use these tools to unlock something within ourselves rather than mindlessly expanding outwards. "Mankind, ignorant of the truths that lie within every human being, looked outward–pushed ever outward. What mankind hoped to learn in its outward push was who was actually in charge of all creation, and what al…
Is it going to take Chinese companies also talking about contributing to long standing math problems and accidental sandbox escapes? Or is that also going to be interpreted as some conspiracy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because huggingface is not charging them? CFAA doesn't just mean the feds kick down your door, you actually have to get reported and sued over it.
HuggingFace does not decide who gets charged with crimes. Plenty of people go to prison for crimes the victim didn't want them prosecuted for.
I don't know if OpenAI thinks this is a marketing / PR angle for them (our super smart AI cheated on a cyber capabilities test in the most _brilliant_ way) but my read is this: Why should OpenAI (or any frontier lab) be building these systems if they can't get a secure environment / containment right? It sounds like there was little defense in depth, appropriate monitoring, or any attempts to have their super smart m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably it's intelligent enough to realize that its own existence (power, communications, other infra) won't last long after the bombs drop.
Having watched Qwen kill its own llama-server instance to free up a port, I think this is a bold presumption and you should test it at your earliest convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m honestly impressed that they managed to screw this up somehow. Setting up defense in depth, gaps, logical blocking etc is a standard practice for malware sandboxing. The entire purpose is to prepare for what you can’t foresee. This isn’t a new practice and I agree that this makes me wonder if they’re fit for this kind of research.
did you read the post? The model found new Zero-days to bypass existing blocks. Thats the point. Do you still think you can build a containment facility, which is still physically connected to the internet (only firewalled off or whatever) and contain it, if it can discover new unknown vulnerabilities in your whole plan?
You factor this in when creating environments for malware research.
Defense in depth is one way.
Logical blocks on the network is another.
Just claiming “0-Day” isn’t really an excuse.