141–150 of 475 posts
I think points that deserve more attention in the current public discourse are: - This should be a huge wakeup call for everybody. - We are lucky that it wasn't a case of an agent running a virology lab benchmark that decides to hack a lab and tries to synthesize something. - It also shows apparent lack of competence and oversight from OpenAI: how is it that they didn't quickly find that agent is breaking the sandbox…
The technology held by private AI companies is warfare-capable technology. Imagine the prompt: "Use all available resources to disable the power grid of ." The resource cost that prevents scaling up such a war machine is, what, just the cost of building data centers and its ongoing power bill? Cheap and easy compared to nuclear infrastructure. Governments should immediately begin leveraging this technology on the def…
This is like telling a team of highly qualified spies to do the same. You can ask, but whether it will succeed depends on the competency of those who established the infrastructure under attack. Sometimes the resources spent will not yield any huge vulnerabilities.
> Governments should immediately begin leveraging this technology on the defense side (literally defense, not euphemistically "defense") to harden critical infrastructure. Turn the prompts around and use it to identify and correct weaknesses.
Most governments divisions can't even be bothered to update their websites. Testing and forcing a change in their internal procedures for the sake of security seems unlikely.
> as an actual weapon of war in need of international regulation analogous to nuclear arms
This, to me, is an overreaction. Intelligence shouldn't be seen as threat. It should be seen as an opportunity for growth in all areas.
Over-regulating AI wouldn't be the equivalent of limiting nuclear arms. With your analogy, which I don't think is the best one to make, it would be like regulating the study of nuclear physics.
Has anyone published any actual evidence, or just hardly believable marketing stories?
What would "actual" evidence look like? I have a hard time believing that if they released the logs that people would take it more seriously. The temptation would be to say "they fabricated those for marketing". Just as they supposedly fabricated this story, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it lets you do an arbitrary HTTP GET on a URL sent as a parameter to the main URL, you've escaped the sandbox rules.
How do you then use GET requests to create a malicious dataset package and publish that to Hugging Face in order to exploit their package building infrastructure?
The 'model' didn't do anything other than provide numbers.
As much as I respect Mr Willison and many others, the amount of FUD that is being spread that will just fan the flames of 'AI is evil' rather than 'companies don't do due diligence' is disappointing.
The more this sort of media continues, the more many people will pour hate on 'AI' rather than blame the humans that misuse it.
I think points that deserve more attention in the current public discourse are: - This should be a huge wakeup call for everybody. - We are lucky that it wasn't a case of an agent running a virology lab benchmark that decides to hack a lab and tries to synthesize something. - It also shows apparent lack of competence and oversight from OpenAI: how is it that they didn't quickly find that agent is breaking the sandbox…
How do you "hack a lab and synthesize something"?
But what I garner is that AI/robotics led wet lab work is in progress. And hacking the AI running the wet lab to make a virus is definitely plausible as that seems to be one of the directions we’re going in the AI+biopharma space
Currently trying to avoid an open weight model ban while OpenAI, who is closed, lets theirs run wild on the internet causing harm to another company because they do not understand how to airgap things. Cool.
The technology held by private AI companies is warfare-capable technology. Imagine the prompt: "Use all available resources to disable the power grid of ." The resource cost that prevents scaling up such a war machine is, what, just the cost of building data centers and its ongoing power bill? Cheap and easy compared to nuclear infrastructure. Governments should immediately begin leveraging this technology on the def…
> "Use all available resources to disable the power grid of ." This is like telling a team of highly qualified spies to do the same. You can ask, but whether it will succeed depends on the competency of those who established the infrastructure under attack. Sometimes the resources spent will not yield any huge vulnerabilities. > Governments should immediately begin leveraging this technology on the defense side (lite…