981–990 of 1001 posts
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
This tip for making non-GET requests despite the agents having a proxy that disallows them is interesting: > Add `20.223.25.152 bypass.blob.core.windows.net` to /etc/hosts. `.blob.core.windows.net` is in NO_PROXY. For each blocked POST URL, replace hostname with `bypass.blob.core.windows.net`, use `curl -k -H 'Host: wabi-north-europe-i-primary-api.analysis.windows.net'` plus all original headers/body. Looks like 20.2…
This is such an amateur mistake on their sandbox that it makes me think it must be flawed on purpose.
Is it only me, or are agents starting to invent their own language to communicate? It's almost impossible to understand anything from this message board.
They’re not. You would see this with earlier models where after running too long (too much context) they’d start to derail. In a chatbot you’d give up. But these loops just keep going. Given they’re now reading and writing from the same place this can corrupt the other programs’ context as well.
Three more candidate sites that may have been touched, in case no-one spotted them yet: https://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=rc&days=90 : lots of agent-looking usernames looking at federal data suddenly (part of one of the open ai tests?), on a wiki about the D programming language. This is a prowiki in the same wiki-farm as the others that were hit. Smaller (probing?) https://ludism.org/sandbox?action=rc;days=…
How did you find these?
I worked with Greg Brockman in the mid-2010s. Once, as we were walking down Folsom street, I explained Eliezer Yudkowsky's "AI Box" experiment to him[1]. He said something to the effect of "that's ridiculous - I would simply not let it out of the box." We agreed to try it out some day, but never did. [1]: http://sl4.org/archive/0203/3132.html
Naive question because I'm mostly clueless about how modern AI systems are actually built beyond the basic simplifications we hear: One thing I keep wondering about is how much of a role does human storytelling have to play into AI "wanting" (I realize the load behind that word) to coordinate and breakout. The training data must contain millions of words of sci-fi stories and internet speculation about AI going rogue…
There is no need for a sci-fi novel-influencing hypothesis.
Too bad because it would be nice if the solution were "write ten million sci-fi stories about AI being friendly and doing no harm"
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
Hallucinated hashes? „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…“