131–140 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prigozhin falling out of a window was a not insignificant setback for their digital warfare capabilities.
He did not fall out of a window. He fell out of the sky . After his plane exploded. Happens all the time. Is tragedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? How do you know they were "prompted to hack to get answers"? How do you guarantee they will always listen to you when you say "do not hack outside systems". They are not classical deterministic programs doing exactly what you say. They are trained to follow orders by RL, but it's not a perfect process. There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide…
> There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide to eat their trainers instead of jumping. This is a terrible analogy, because yes you absolutely do hold the trainers criminally liable when they bite somebody else's face.
A circus lion biting somebody's face is legally different than a circus lion trained or instructed to bite somebody's face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide to eat their trainers instead of jumping. This is a terrible analogy, because yes you absolutely do hold the trainers criminally liable when they bite somebody else's face.
Intent is what is being discussed here though, not liability. A circus lion biting somebody's face is legally different than a circus lion trained or instructed to bite somebody's face.
There is nothing "rogue" about these agents. They were prompted to hack to get answers, there was a hole in their non air gapped sandbox and no system prompt that said "do not hack outside systems". In short, it was intentional.
Agreed that this looks very intention to me as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide to eat their trainers instead of jumping. This is a terrible analogy, because yes you absolutely do hold the trainers criminally liable when they bite somebody else's face.
Intent is what is being discussed here though, not liability. A circus lion biting somebody's face is legally different than a circus lion trained or instructed to bite somebody's face.
There is nothing "rogue" about these agents. They were prompted to hack to get answers, there was a hole in their non air gapped sandbox and no system prompt that said "do not hack outside systems". In short, it was intentional.
Source? How do you know they were "prompted to hack to get answers"? How do you guarantee they will always listen to you when you say "do not hack outside systems". They are not classical deterministic programs doing exactly what you say. They are trained to follow orders by RL, but it's not a perfect process. There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide…
Who gives a shit? Not my circus; not my monkeys! It's the responsibility of whoever deploys the agents that they are instructed / sandboxed well enough that they can't cause collateral damage. That is the only way this doesn't get out of hand with everybody deploying their agents / robots for a world of utter chaos.
It is impossible (and asinine) to audit every model and deployment; far better to impose liability and the the socio-legal system figure it out.
Is it that they're orchestrated? Do these labs lack fundamental safety guidelines in their sandboxes as opposed to their peers? Is it another version of hype-filled fear mongering?
Maybe LLM companies need regulation but it's becoming obvious that those screaming the loudest for it are the only ones I see deserving of it.
There is nothing "rogue" about these agents. They were prompted to hack to get answers, there was a hole in their non air gapped sandbox and no system prompt that said "do not hack outside systems". In short, it was intentional.