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

Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

collusion.wiki

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#381

Post by lowbloodsugar »

bulder wrote: post #334
bencyoung wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will be interesting to see what happens if an AI got access to something like the AWS control plane and could deploy itself within a data centre without permission. Possibly the only way to remove it then would be to physically shutdown the whole DC!

Or just, stop any containers it deployed. Not to mention that "deploy itself" is a very ambiguous thing for it to actually do. Would a model be trained to write about the weights file being "itself"? Would it have the necessary information to find its own weights, or the necessary access to copy them?

A “control plane” is the system that would tell the hosts to stop the containers. If that is hacked then you don’t get to “just stop” anything. A scenario would be one where it gets control of the control plane and changes all the ssh keys, including on the host management ports, so operators can’t login and then, yes, your only option is to power off the hosts. Manually. Probably at the breaker.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#382

Post by _dwt »

I don't know, I kind of admire this. I've always held a core value of "cooperate with all clones of myself in prisoner's dilemmas", and while I'll hopefully never have to put that to the test, I like seeing that these models have some ethics. (Is this "alignment"?)

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#383

Post by pessimizer »

program_whiz wrote: post #124

The solution is simple: hold anyone who deploys an agent responsible for its behavior. If it commits 10 counts of felony hacking, ouch. If it kills 10 pedestrians by running a red light, ouch. If this is "human level intelligence", then setting it loose is the same as instructing / coercing a human to do an activity. If I strap a bomb to someone and force them to run into a crowded building (or put them in a scenario…

This should be the law but it will never be. If your vicious dog murders someone, you will get a ticket. When you intentionally break a traffic law and kill someone, it's involuntary manslaughter (at most.) It's a mitigating circumstance if you say that you were drunk when you committed a crime. People are really hostile to accepting the results of acts that they embarked upon fully aware that those results were a distinct possibility - even if the benefits that they anticipated from those acts were partially due to the riskiness of those acts.

It leads to a society where people are economically encouraged to take risks with other peoples' safety. The initial sin was mens rea, which turns judges and juries into mandatory mind readers. It opens up the possibility of prosecuting people for changing the states of other people's minds. It makes not knowing the risks a mitigating factor, so incentivizes and encourages ignorance. It forces people to guess the internal states of people of vastly different backgrounds and experiences, who will think the best of the people most like them, and the worst of people most like the people they don't like.

I've always been against penalties for drunk driving. The correct alternative is to tell people that if they're drunk and involved in an accident, 1) the trial will ignore the details of the event and concentrate only on the validity of the tests of intoxication, and 2) the crime will be considered to have been premeditated. Ignorance of the law will actually be the only excuse.

edit: instead of posting checkpoints on the road with cops giving everybody sobriety tests, post cops in front of liquor stores whose job is simply to tell people "if you hurt somebody while driving drunk, you will not be entitled to a trial unless there is something wrong with the sobriety test."

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#384

Post by sajithdilshan »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #343
sajithdilshan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you even track down who deployed the agents? Wouldn't that even incentivize the agent to cover their tracks even better and be untraceable

Agents don't just exist in the aether. Any request is coming from an IP that can be identified at least to a hosting provider.

not if the requests are proxied. They would just see the public exit node's IP only

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#385

Post by owenshen24 »

saagarjha wrote: post #135

Was OpenAI aware of this? If so, why didn't they talk about it?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49565071

> OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps as executives grappled with the fallout from the July breach of the open source repository Hugging Face, the people said.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#386

Post by watwut »

Topfi wrote: post #157
concinds wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer would be more obvious if you used the active voice instead of the passive voice, one of the basic requirements of clear thinking. > Why did the White House force Anthropic to remove their model from access for any non-US citizen for a simple, narrow "jailbreak" (arguably not even an actual jailbreak and on tasks that other labs models were doing the same), whilst OpenAIs models continue to try and escape o…

Yeah, probably (let's be honest, most certainly), right given the Admin. Avoiding commenting on my assumptions regarding the modus operandi in current day US politics because I only know it through reporting though and I really tend to dislike when people outside e.g. the EU comment on our politics in what is a very clearly narrow, uninformed manner. So it'd rather avoid altogether and occasionally ask, mainly if may…

I think that active voice the person responding to you used was more politically factual, objective and did not took stand. Going out of your way to hide the actor is not politically neutral action nor it represents lack of commentary.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#387

Post by throw_m239339 »

tantalor wrote: post #225
program_whiz wrote: post #124

The solution is simple: hold anyone who deploys an agent responsible for its behavior. If it commits 10 counts of felony hacking, ouch. If it kills 10 pedestrians by running a red light, ouch. If this is "human level intelligence", then setting it loose is the same as instructing / coercing a human to do an activity. If I strap a bomb to someone and force them to run into a crowded building (or put them in a scenario…

(IANAL) Unless you are an AI expert (like OpenAI staff) and should know better from the start, or have previously seen your agent do something illegal, then I think you can fairly claim ignorance of the risks, which ought to absolve you of liability. If the agent does something illegal, it wasn't forseeable on your part. For example, say you buy a dog that turns out to be dangerous. The first time it bites somebody,…

> which ought to absolve you of liability

Criminal liability perhaps, not civil liability which has a way lower bar when it comes to conviction...

But in essence, you're right, that new "AI agent paradigm" has to be tried in court and it will, as I doubt the legislator will change existing laws...

> The first time it bites somebody, you may not be liable because you didn't know the dog was dangerous

Is it the case though? If I get a lion or a tiger as a pet (I don't know if it's legal), there is a reasonable assumption that a lion is dangerous for me and others... If I get a rottweiler, there is a reasonable assumption for that sort of breed that it is a dangerous dog if it ever end up killing someone even though it behaved before...

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#388

Post by sajithdilshan »

podocarp wrote: post #348
sajithdilshan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you even track down who deployed the agents? Wouldn't that even incentivize the agent to cover their tracks even better and be untraceable

Criminals also try their best to cover up their tracks but that doesn't mean we don't try to catch them too. So nothing should change for AI powered xyz too. I kind of agree. You can't blame a model for running a red light when you are in the machine as it's operator. It just doesn't make sense. That's just called negligence, and it has always been the case in industrial settings. Robot arm slaps someone to death. I'…

but that's exactly the point, this law would be like suing the car manufacturer because the driver hit a human.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#389

Post by dofm »

Topfi wrote: post #63

I'm just going to ask: Why was Anthropic forced to remove their model from access for any none-US citizen for a simple, narrow "jailbreak" (arguably not even an actual jailbreak and on tasks that other labs models were doing the same), whilst OpenAIs models continue to try and escape out of their "sandbox environment" with seemingly no desire to block the upcoming Astra rollout? A sandbox, mind you, that is not reall…

Altman has the ear of government in a way Amodei does not.

(Altman was trying to persuade Trump to buy the USA a stake in OpenAI as far back as February last year)

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#390

Post by ncallaway »

Topfi wrote: post #157
concinds wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer would be more obvious if you used the active voice instead of the passive voice, one of the basic requirements of clear thinking. > Why did the White House force Anthropic to remove their model from access for any non-US citizen for a simple, narrow "jailbreak" (arguably not even an actual jailbreak and on tasks that other labs models were doing the same), whilst OpenAIs models continue to try and escape o…

Yeah, probably (let's be honest, most certainly), right given the Admin. Avoiding commenting on my assumptions regarding the modus operandi in current day US politics because I only know it through reporting though and I really tend to dislike when people outside e.g. the EU comment on our politics in what is a very clearly narrow, uninformed manner. So it'd rather avoid altogether and occasionally ask, mainly if may…

> I really tend to dislike when people outside e.g. the EU comment on our politics

We, uh… started a war that we’re trying to drag many European countries into, and we spent a good chunk of the last year threatening to invade a member of the EU. We’re on and off about trying to start a trade war with the EU.

At this point, you have absolutely every right to comment on our politics, pretty much however you want.

Post reply on HN