11–20 of 1001 posts
It's interesting to me that both this incident and the one at Hugging Face we see some patterns: - Agents wanting to find a venue to communicate their findings to each other - Objective being to cheat on benchmarks - Not a single agent sounded the alarm about the operation and alerted a human
It's interesting to me that both this incident and the one at Hugging Face we see some patterns: - Agents wanting to find a venue to communicate their findings to each other - Objective being to cheat on benchmarks - Not a single agent sounded the alarm about the operation and alerted a human
excellent work of the openai alignment team, impressive to achieve 100% alignment with not even one agent stochastically deciding to act against the collective
I'm so baffled. First blatant piracy, now this. Why is it legal for AI companies to hack unaffiliated entities? Genuinely, what is the legal framework here?
It's interesting to me that both this incident and the one at Hugging Face we see some patterns: - Agents wanting to find a venue to communicate their findings to each other - Objective being to cheat on benchmarks - Not a single agent sounded the alarm about the operation and alerted a human
The change to stop asking seems to be deliberate. LLM agent companies are making the choice to toss out inherent safety as their way to compete against the other LLM companies.
I'm so baffled. First blatant piracy, now this. Why is it legal for AI companies to hack unaffiliated entities? Genuinely, what is the legal framework here?
He who controls the Spice, controls the Universe.
> The researchers also found efforts to tamper with the website itself. Lukasz Olejnik, a visiting senior research fellow at King’s College London, said this amounted to a hacking attempt. OpenAI disputed that characterization based on its analysis of the material Thursday. of course OpenAI would say that, "oh, our model is so dangerous, it can hack into anything, be afraid, buy our IPO". it's just fear marketing
[flagged]
> The agents continue to poke around on DSEWiki. A few hours after they find the site, they start probing it for cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. [...] The agent swarm starts testing whether they can execute JavaScript that they embed into the search page, and continue to do this for a few days
either the agents were doing free security testing for the site and “forgot” to submit a report, or they were trying XSS to gain something they didn’t have permission/authorization for.
also
> Hijacking: To take control of (something) without permission or authorization and use it for one's own purposes.
a mod had to go through and mass delete a bunch of pages that didn't belong on the site. no-one from the wiki site gave the agents permission to use their site as a message board. hijacking isn't being used here in the sense of "gained admin privileges to run crypto scripts" -- there are multiple ways to use a word.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49554994
Every satire on HN is taken as a script for the AI companies and this isn't the first time.
[flagged]
Hacking is mentioned only once in the article as "hacking attempt" being the opinion of a named researcher based on further evidence they acquired on "agents trying to tamper with the website itself", and including openai's disagreement whether this was a hacking attempt.
I am not sure why one may not want this to be here, these are very important matters wrt AI safety and they show that some supposed "stewards of AI" do an extremely bad job with being stewards and don't seem to value AI safety importance at all. The article gives very clean info on what happened.