581–590 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
Is there anything that could convince you that actually-bad things are actually-happening? How can you possibly think that these people are somehow working for OpenAI? Is it impossible for you to imagine that there exist people who actually oppose the actions of these companies?
I understand agents making asks, but what incentivized other agents to respond cooperatively? Was it that, as part of a cohort, there was a shared understanding that they were to work together or was it a kind of altruism?
They're being trained to work together normally is the thing - i.e. the whole agentic workflow is agents spawning sub-agents. This likely manifests as, if they have any sort of text input which looks like inter-agent cooperation then they cooperate because any given instance is unlikely to have enough context window to know if it's meant to be a subordinate or a leader or not (and any decent cooperative enterprise le…
Sci-fi story in the making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such an amateur mistake on their sandbox that it makes me think it must be flawed on purpose.
Or vibe coded by one of their devs.
We are running random code in user space. It’s a damn virus. We don’t fully understand all of their abilities. We are cruising towards disaster.
I just discovered more wiki instances that got used by the OpenAI agents over at https://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id... and https://www.wikiservice.at/probier/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id... It's the same software and host as DseWiki. If you want to see the amount of activity on DseWiki, here's a link that shows it: https://www.wikiservice.at/dse/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Rec...
[flagged]
user: 123ahg created: 3 hours ago I never know the right time to use the word ironic nowadays, so I'll just stick w/ interestinnnng
I just discovered more wiki instances that got used by the OpenAI agents over at https://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id... and https://www.wikiservice.at/probier/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id... It's the same software and host as DseWiki. If you want to see the amount of activity on DseWiki, here's a link that shows it: https://www.wikiservice.at/dse/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Rec...
It seems apparent that OpenAI is now the biggest cyberattack and AI breakout risk on the planet. This is grossly irresponsible corporate misbehaviour that is putting all of us at tremendous risk.
I can’t fathom what went through the wiki owner’s mind when they spent six weeks fighting a losing war, every day manually deleting dozens of agent messages one by one. As opposed to, say, switching the (dead for years) wiki to read-only, taking it down entirely, and/or starting to wonder what exactly was going on and doing some detective work, which might have uncovered OpenAI’s massive fuckups earlier.
> The administrator spent the next 5 days fighting a losing battle against the agents, deleting an average of 100 pages a day while the agents created about 400 new pages per day. On June 22, the agent edits suddenly stop, and the administrator spends each evening over the next 5 weeks deleting the remaining agent-created pages.
Five weeks worth of evenings!
It's not unsurprising that they would have maybe tried using similar techniques they've used before, especially if it was a mostly-inactive hobby site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a simple prisoner's dilemma scenario. If you focus on safety, you're still exposed to all the risk of extinction when your competitor achieves ASI first, but you lose the upside of potentially becoming king of the world. There is no possibility of future rounds, so the rational strategy is to always defect.
It can certainly be seen as a simple prisoner's dilemma, but it's not in some very important dimensions. (E.g. given the core tech the most likely outcomes are not AGI but developed carelessly nonetheless capable of causing all sorts of societal damage.) Unfortunately our bitwit overlords love short term self serving frameworks like this one so it's easy to imagine them embracing a "what has the future ever done for…
So long as it's non-neglible, it doesn't change the rational strategy. Uncertainty about whether ASI is achievable only reduces the magnitudes of the expected values of the payoffs, not their relative order. Adding a "global misery" scenario does not change the fact that "extinction OR king of the world OR global misery" is strictly superior to "extinction OR global misery".