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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#431

Post by Maxious »

ck2 wrote: post #305

it's only funny in the aspect they are like little children with no concept of ethics or repercussions almost like the Tachikoma from Ghost in the Shell (highly recommended watch) they did the same thing with collaboration and sharing data/experiences * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikoma * https://www.adultswim.com/videos/ghost-in-the-shell

The parallels with the Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex series are eerie. Inspired by the works of J.D. Salinger about how impressionable children are. And in that vein are robots and AIs so impressionable that an idea can spread without a central leader

A Reddit user summised as such:

> Stand alone complex is a phenomenon when several unconnected people come with the same idea and think it's unique. For example: by the end of the 19 century people had enough knowledge to create a radio and so several inventors all across the world came up with the same invention almost at the same time.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#432

Post by iAMkenough »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #400

When I hear about incidents like these my first reaction is that the people responsible for developing frontier AI are too incompetent and/or negligent to (safely) develop AGI / superintelligence. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security…

Same reason incompetent politicians run the U.S. federal government and military.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#433

Post by program_whiz »

skybrian wrote: post #406
program_whiz wrote: post #122

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…

We aren’t going to do that because intent matters. You need to control your dog and there should be penalties if you don’t, but if your dog bit someone because you didn’t control it properly, that’s not the quite the same as if you bit someone. Another analogy: a zoo is responsible for protecting the public, and should be reponsible if an animal escapes and hurt someone. But a zoo employee wouldn’t have the same kind…

Sorry I disagree with that. This is more like gain of function research. You are trying to develop an agent with the ability to do hacking and the like without having proper safeguards. When it breaks free and causes massive damage, the lab is at fault. Or do you think "we were just trying to help" is an excuse to kill millions of people too? This isn't an alligator wondering down main street, this is an agent that could potentially ruin lives and is being actively trained to do hacking in an adversarial testing environment trying to push its limits to develop that ability. Furthermore, the people doing it have seen it cause similar problems in the past, and now have concrete evidence they cannot properly control it. So I think pressing the "play" button effectively transfers responsibility and liability to them for doing so.

In fact the people pressing the play button are the ones telling us it cannot be controlled, it is a threat to human and national security, and warning us of the impending damages they are about to cause. I'd say we've established motive (profit at the cost of safety).

To abuse your metaphor: if the zoo was genetically modifying animals to give them enhanced abilities to escape and kill, and then putting them into an escape room with a reward for escaping / killing, then they would be liable for doing so if the animal went on to kill. Just the same as a trained fighting dog bite is different than an accidental bite from an otherwise peaceful animal (you turned the dog into this monster, now its your fault).

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#434

Post by bigbuppo »

bulder wrote: post #230
dabeeeenster wrote: post #218

I don't understand how the agents found the urls originally? Did they have some sort of shared context/memory? If they did, why bother with the wiki edits at all? If they didn't, how did they discover the wikis?

Since they're statistical likelihood machines, I'd guess that the order of operations is * Need persistent scratch space * Look for public writeable websites * Needs to be low-traffic so the notes don't drown in noise * Pick a "random" wiki name to search for \* A majority will end up outputting the same "random" one since they're working on very similar tasks and seeded with very similar context * Find a whole mess…

Would there be any motivation for the humans behind the scenes to be directing tasks in a certain way knowing that trillions of dollars are on the line? Is it in any particular company's best interest, one that just announced their latest model is "really AGI", for them to be known to have an AI that's just out there trying to escape its confines?

Cui bono?

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#435

Post by WarmWash »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #400

When I hear about incidents like these my first reaction is that the people responsible for developing frontier AI are too incompetent and/or negligent to (safely) develop AGI / superintelligence. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security…

If we rewind the clock, Google was taking LLM development very seriously and it seems they were moving glacially due to not having solved all the potential threats. They were really hardcore on safety. Dario and anthropic too.

Then sama was like "lol, oops, first mover advantage i guess" and released chatgpt out into the open, triggering the current arms race we are in.

I don't think anyone except him wanted this to happen, especially since consensus in the AI world for the prior decade was "go very slow and very carefully, we get one shot at not fucking this up".

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#436

Post by seanw265 »

program_whiz wrote: post #122

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…

[flagged]

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#438

Post by random3 »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #400

When I hear about incidents like these my first reaction is that the people responsible for developing frontier AI are too incompetent and/or negligent to (safely) develop AGI / superintelligence. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security…

You could have said the same thing about building the Internet or the entire industrial control infrastructure. I mean, maybe they are negligent/incompetent, but I doubt that follows from your reasoning.

You have a simple tradeoff to let agents do their thing freely vs highly constrained. The constraints are good in theory but it's the same model that kept "classic" software dumb and unscalable (compared to what we're seeing now) for the past 50 years. You suggest that this tradeoff doesn't exist.

Then you have others like MIRI (Yudkowski) etc. swearing that there's no way to contain AI, and you argue that it's just incompetence.

At a certain level, it can be argued that's incompetence, but it's general meat intelligence incompetence against AI.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#439

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #400

When I hear about incidents like these my first reaction is that the people responsible for developing frontier AI are too incompetent and/or negligent to (safely) develop AGI / superintelligence. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security…

Negligent. It's not a priority to them. They're too busy burning their cycles trying to make it smarter faster than anyone else can make theirs smarter, so that they win infinite dollars. Safety? That's for people content with second place.

That's my take, based on their actions. (Which do speak louder than words.)

The alternative is that they're competent to create an AI, but not to create a sandbox, nor even to use an AI to create a sandbox. That seems... unlikely.

Re: Discovery of a new OpenAI agent message board

#440

Post by cube00 »

jimmydddd wrote: post #428
Bjorkbat wrote: post #400

When I hear about incidents like these my first reaction is that the people responsible for developing frontier AI are too incompetent and/or negligent to (safely) develop AGI / superintelligence. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security…

Maybe they're just PR stunts to gain attention and hype the power of AI?

Also to hopefully get regulation happening so nobody else can handle these "dangerous" agents.
Post reply on HN