91–100 of 311 posts
When science fiction writers imagined the development of superintelligence, it was on air-gapped networks with strict access controls around it. They failed to anticipate the competitive pressures of capitalism... We need strong AI safety regulation yesterday. And unfortunately it's not enough for it to be just national regulation; we need international cooperation on the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? There may very well be a wolf lurking [0] but OpenAI/Anthropic have both cried wolf so many times, incorrectly, that it’s incredibly hard to believe “this time there IS a wolf!”. Remember “GPT-2 is too dangerous to release”? I had a conversation at work just yesterday about how we need to start hardening things we’ve let languish because of the coming LLM-backed attack…
Has the last 100 years of concern about AI and robots been crying wolf because it hasn’t happened yet? How does reallocating resources from training to chain of thought monitoring make ‘financial’ sense? You suggesting then model was let loose on purpose.. how am I the crazy one here while all of you are pushing this tin foil hat conspiracy angle?
I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…
>I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. we don't all buy everything sama says as factual. >We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. the boy (the industry) cried wolf too many times with 'fable is a world ending event' type self-promotion; regard…
Did anyone actually say this?
Mostly what I have seen is people saying "hey at some point these models might get dangerous." And the type of HN commenter who mistakes blind cynicism for wisdom laughs that off as marketing. And now when (some) worries appear to come true, somehow having previously expressed those worries is not being proved right, but in fact discrediting, because it was "crying wolf."
> simultaneously spinning down expenses
Unless OpenAI is renting their compute to others, spinning down RL training doesn't save them any money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I’m talking about - no matter what happens, in your case release public logs - there is always some new goal post to mentally hide behind. Is it a collective form or denial? Are you holding out that somewhere in the logs is something you can point to and say, not that big of a deal? I mean I’m sure you don’t think the hack was an inside job, conspiracy, or marketing right? It happened. The logs matter fo…
Your argument is essentially: "I made a claim and presented extremely weak evidence (sci movie plots and unverified claims from ultra conflicted sources). You rejected this evidence as insufficient. Therefore no evidence will ever satisfy you. Therefore I don't need to produce any evidence. Therefore my claim is true." What would the logs show? They would show what actually happened. What would a public demonstration…
Not that you should need logs. OpenAI is a company with thousands of employees, very few of whom have "billions in options". If they were just making it all up, it would leak. (OpenAI is notoriously leaky!) Not to mention, HuggingFace would not have reported it to the police (apparently before they knew it was a rogue model). jFrog would probably not be playing along quietly with a claim that Artifactory is full of zero days. The UK's AI Security Institute would most likely not have published a report about analogous behavior by Anthropic models. The idea that talking about your product's dangers is good marketing never really made any sense, but even if you were going to do so, why would you include as many frankly embarrassing details as OpenAI has disclosed?
The evidence is only weak by absurdly selective standards that would have you doubting basically everything you might read in the newspaper. A healthy skepticism is one thing, and head-in-the-sand denial is another.
I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up A movie fit for our time. You can produce detailed descriptions of the incident, verified by adversarial parties, and some people will still scream "it's a conspiracy! It's a marketing stunt!" This is all very unfortunate--there's a meaningful chance that AI will cause unprecedented disaster, with the HF incident being just a small preview, but people would rather squawk…
In the real world, absolutely no one except a bunch of heavily fiscally incentivized parties with unclear relationships are saying anything happened.
The subsequent dog pile of other companies to say "they were near the AI hacking too!" should make you even more suspicious: Anthropic jumped in and why was Tailscale posting about this?
I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…
It's not that dangerous, OpenAI just shit the bed building their infra. Write safer software and you'll be okay.
I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…
If these models are so dangerous, then why hasn't OAI or Anthropic shown them dangerously escaping sandboxes, nefariously coordinating with other escaped AIs, and skillfully hiding from human detection *in public* with full logs shared where we can all see exactly how dangerous they are or aren't? Right now the entire chicken-little-sky-is-falling argument is based entirely on statements from OAI and Anthropic themse…
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/its-ai-agent-spent-days-hac...
[2]: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? There may very well be a wolf lurking [0] but OpenAI/Anthropic have both cried wolf so many times, incorrectly, that it’s incredibly hard to believe “this time there IS a wolf!”. Remember “GPT-2 is too dangerous to release”? I had a conversation at work just yesterday about how we need to start hardening things we’ve let languish because of the coming LLM-backed attack…
Has the last 100 years of concern about AI and robots been crying wolf because it hasn’t happened yet? How does reallocating resources from training to chain of thought monitoring make ‘financial’ sense? You suggesting then model was let loose on purpose.. how am I the crazy one here while all of you are pushing this tin foil hat conspiracy angle?
We have several films about the sun or earth needing to be restarted with a nuclear weapon. That doesn't make it something we should be concerned about.
Hell, half the fiction about evil AI is actually commentary on stuff that already exists and is making us suffer and doesn't have anything to do with any potential future AI
The Star Trek TNG episode about Data being tried in court as to whether he is sentient or not is not actually about whether AIs should have rights or not!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the last 100 years of concern about AI and robots been crying wolf because it hasn’t happened yet? How does reallocating resources from training to chain of thought monitoring make ‘financial’ sense? You suggesting then model was let loose on purpose.. how am I the crazy one here while all of you are pushing this tin foil hat conspiracy angle?
Most of that concern was in fiction. Non theoretical, genuine concern about AI is pretty recent, maybe dating back to 2010 ish with the rationalist types. But also no one trusts anyone involved in AI safety now, I think, because they are all seemingly in bed with these big companies. And there is the perpetual argument "if we aren't pushing AI forward China will and then we don't have any control" and so on. (I don't…
I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…
You must be really desperate if you resort to panic attacks like this.
If my subconscious realized what yours probably does then I’d probably be desperate for some sort of cope as well.
Open your eyes.