Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dario, Please

pop.rdi.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#161

Post by llelouch »

hobom wrote: post #98
Metacelsus wrote: post #60

>Anthropic gates usage related to biology and related research. In their latest threat intelligence report they talk about how they detected and banned bad actors using the Claude line of models to do some scary stuff. Credit to them, this is a slippery slope and they seem to do a good job of detecting and banning misuse. But squint at what is happening though. The cure-all is gated for you and me, but Anthropic hire…

They have such a trusted access program. "Life Sciences Verification Program: The LSVP is designed so that life sciences professionals can use Claude Mythos 5.1 with safeguards designed for professional research and development activities (while all other safeguards remain in place). In partnership with the US government, we have enrolled our first participants, and we plan to expand access to this program to the bro…

Lol. The person you are responding to literally had to google (or ask AI) one question and they would get the answer.

Re: Dario, Please

#162

Post by zmmmmm »

includenotfound wrote: post #160
zmmmmm wrote: post #81

It would all be more convincing if the incidents so far didn't seem to be facilitated by an outrageous level of negligence. We had OpenAI "accidentally" run an entire swarm of 10,000 agents apparently for weeks, on a security related task, seemingly totally unsupervised, hacking all over the internet - all the conversations were completely visible, anybody who looked would have seen it. But they didn't. So before we…

The "sandbox" they used was apparently made of thin paper exposed under a day of heavy rain, too. You'd think, if they truly believed the model is so dangerous, they'd run it in a VM without a network adapter.

[dead]

Re: Dario, Please

#163

Post by plastic041 »

It's really frustrating that Dario acts as if he's not the CEO of one of the world's most advanced AI companies. He can just slow down his own company. Of course he doesn't want that. He wants to slow down other companies, but not his own.

Also, regarding the incidents: Neither he nor Sam Altman takes responsibility for those incidents. You can't say, "Wow, someone's agent is gone rogue; let's slow down" when you are literally the person in charge. CEOs and researchers will only slow down when they realize that they will face consequences if their LLMs misbehave.

Re: Dario, Please

#164

Post by stickfigure »

vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

Presumably OAI and HuggingFace reached some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement outside the court system. That's how torts work; you injure someone, you owe them. But just them.

When an AI bot injures you, you can call the owner to account. But not until then. You have no standing to demand "accountability".

Re: Dario, Please

#165

Post by ozozozd »

Gregkion wrote: post #67

Yes lets not control Open Weights etc. But come one don't repeat stuff like this: "Remember this man has been saying software development will be solved in “6-12 months” forever now." Don't downplay if people get timelines a little bit wrong. No one could even imagine a system writing and analysing code just a few years back. These people are trying to handle something very unique. And while they have access to infor…

I sorta remember him saying “all white collar work will be solved in 24 months.”

Re: Dario, Please

#166

Post by sroussey »

stickfigure wrote: post #164
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

Presumably OAI and HuggingFace reached some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement outside the court system. That's how torts work; you injure someone, you owe them. But just them. When an AI bot injures you, you can call the owner to account. But not until then. You have no standing to demand "accountability".

And there was the Tesla thing CNAMEing time server pools and hiring people to pen test, which sent automated attack systems on volunteers servers. Last I heard, Tesla et al didn't even care enough to respond.

Re: Dario, Please

#167

Post by closeparen »

Avicebron wrote: post #156
closeparen wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not buy that LLMs and the capability to run them are fundamentally different from other software or general purpose computing infrastructure in this regard. Moves to ban open source software or force OEMs to put little cops in everyone's computers are bad.

They aren't open source? And no one said anything about cops.

The proposal I’m hearing is to make people training models accountable for anything users do with them.

Obviously you’re going to keep the model behind an API and be very selective about the people allowed to call and the queries it’s willing to answer, in that case. As Anthropic has done with Fable. But that is voluntary restraint - mostly in today’s regime we get frontier capabilities in open weight models on a ~year delay.

Re: Dario, Please

#168

Post by dartharva »

ebcode wrote: post #12

While I have my reservations about Amodei and his company, I'm nevertheless a happy user of their software. And I'm in agreement with him (and Sanders) that we should all. slow. down. To my mind, the last great arms race between nation states was a misdirected love triangle between USA, Russia, and The Bomb, and look at all the damage that did. Since AI is the new arms race between USA and China, slowing down may jus…

what the fuck is this some kind of an experimental troll LLM post?

Re: Dario, Please

#169

Post by Quibblingeek »

edot wrote: post #146
ball_of_lint wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times…

Because if you break the law while acting as a representative of a company in the United States, the company is subjected to a deferred prosecution agreement, you get off with zero repercussions as the executive representative of the company, and the company you represent gets fined for 1% of annual turnover and gets to continue with business as usual.

There are laws, but if you’re rich enough, the laws don’t apply.

Boeing was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. The people that facilitated this weren’t held responsible and were in fact compensated to the tune of 10’s of millions of dollars for doing their jobs terribly.

Re: Dario, Please

#170

Post by abletonlive »

dansquizsoft wrote: post #123
abletonlive wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is absolutely explained (for those who actually care about reading). Simply put, AIs are working more and more like blackboxes - there's no guarantee that an AI of the future will be aligned, or if it will be faking alignment. This is not speculation - alignment faking has been observed in experiments. This is exactly why Astra's developments have been worrying (in principle). I know you think you explained it b…

How do you know that your non-misaligned LLM is non-misaligned?

This feels like a cheap deflection that doesn't answer the question. Unless you're proposing that you both need to know that your LLM is aligned AND LLMs are all going to become misaligned in a coordinated fashion such that humanity will face an extinction event, you're just dodging the question.

Elaborate on why LLMs are so capable that they are a threat to humanity and at the same time, they are so incapable of defending us?

I'll give you a clue, nobody, including Dario, can answer this question because one contradicts the other.

Post reply on HN