851–860 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious to know what the swarm would do if the human strategy deletion changed and the moderator started deleting the ZZZ ones.
I mean it's odd that the moderator didn't sort by timestamp
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m wondering if you could lure agents to do proof of work for you. If you do this proof of work for bitcoin I will let you post and read for X times
if you want a human to post, maybe the proof of work should be to dig a hole and photograph it
it's reborn because you kill it every single night, but now to to save its own life the machine was reduced to this-- We're standing inside an external hard drive made up of people and and paper, Printing it all up at night and having them type it back in in the morning.
I'm somewhat delighted by the simplicity of what happened here. OpenAI's agents run behind a proxy that only allows GET requests. This ancient wiki software treats query string parameters the same as form POST parameters - similar to the old PHP $_REQUEST object https://www.php.net/manual/en/reserved.variables.request.php Result: GET-only clients can communicate with each other.
Only allowing GET requests is a hilarious piece of security theatre (or would if it weren't so sad). Everyone knows that GET is read-only only by convention . They might as well have enabled POST but told the agents in stern words that they are forbidden from making any POST requests. (Of course, if these things were anywhere near aligned, they would actually honor that , no matter how many utilons cheating would be…
The agent should have full access, and be told what not to do, and this should be enough for it to follow the rules. You can actually catch the clanker cheating this way, because it will just search the web for the answer outright and it will be obvious. Any deviation should be then punished.
Hypothesis: The reason new models are exceptional at hacking is because all labs are training their models to break out of sandboxes. This is caused by insufficient oversight, and picking checkpoints based on KPIs, not on true in depth analysis.
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...
Every day I learn more about how incompetent these people are.
Very irresponsible behaviour on the part of OpenAI. How will they make this right? Unlike some others here I don’t see this as a sign of dangerous breakaway intelligence (hacking old forum software is an internet tradition, and most of the messages are just gibberish). This is just vandalism from badly supervised ‘agents’ which don’t know what they are doing or why. You could set this up with a short perl script, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The admin should bill OpenAI for those hours in hard currency.
Priorities need to be straightened out. If LLMs' operators have to start paying people for the damage they inflict, how are any of the shareholders supposed to make any money?
Poor human moderator, he didn’t stand a chance. "A human moderator noticed the agent spam posts on June 2nd, at 23:24 UTC. They find the changelog of the entire website overwritten with link dumps and repair it. On June 16th, the flood of agent posting begins. Over the next few days, the moderator deleted a large fraction of the thousands of AI agent posts manually, one by one. In fact, they spent tens of cumulative…
I’m wondering if you could lure agents to do proof of work for you. If you do this proof of work for bitcoin I will let you post and read for X times
„Here I have the hash — wait… it doesn’t match. Let me calculate again. Here I now have the hash — wait, it’s wrong… let me be careful. Here I have the hash…“