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

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#191

Post by sph »

alexandre_m wrote: post #132
nialv7 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no accountability for companies, it's not a new thing. 3M polluted groundwater in Minnesota for 50 years[1]; Nestlé misled mothers in order to make them stop breastfeeding and switch to their formula which killed babies [2]; Both copmanies are still doing business today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M_contamination_of_Minnesota_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

Here’s an unpopular opinion: COVID vaccine injuries are something no one seems willing to talk about. There have been documented cases here in Canada. You’re worried about companies. I’m far more concerned when governments are involved.

How is it that the entire rest of the world has managed to move on, yet North America is still going on with vaccine conspiracies 6 years later? And we got the same vaccines as you guys.

Re: Dario, Please

#192

Post by ozozozd »

augment_me wrote: post #144
adventured wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing new about any of this liability attachment. You're saying these things like they're novel. If GM does something (or fails to do something) to their vehicle that causes me to crash, they're liable for the crash. If someone cuts my brake lines (alters my vehicle) and I crash my car and kill someone, the person that cut the lines is responsible. I have to prove the context of course, and or an investigat…

Well the difference is that in the software realm, you can attach infinite loops of delegation and ownership at close to no cost, which makes this impossible to investigate conclusively. Let's say that OpenAI used a shell company that hosts server where an agent spun up another agent on instructions from another agent which was corrupted by bit errors from the inference framework which caused some major hack to happe…

I am sorry but that’s pure fantasy.

When you say infinite loops, you mean infinite indirection, but obviously no such thing exists, because computer systems, just like other physical things, exist in physical space, not on the astral plane.

Whoever had agency to start the domino effect carries the liability. Doesn’t matter if the model is open source or if you brewed it home. And if you weaponize OpenAI’s models through their servers, it would likely be shared liability. Yours would be malice, theirs would be negligence.

Re: Dario, Please

#193

Post by jan_m_savage »

resonious wrote: post #186
jan_m_savage wrote: post #185

great post. I also like the author's writing style-- he/she really knows how to write well.

Agreed. I think LLMs have actually made good writing stand out more. Now everyone who wasn't a great writer is just producing Claude-isms which are easy to detect. If it doesn't smell like Claude, it's probably good.

Thanks. I myself guard against reading Claudism/AIisms since these will, over the long run, affect my own style. GIGO.

But it's not practical or always possible to avoid reading AI-writing, so to counter that, I've been binge-reading Anthony Trollope novels. Great writing, good entertainment, and deep psychological insights, better than any British novelist, imo, in any era.

(My profile on HN has a link to my blog where I review what I read).

Re: Dario, Please

#194

Post by BLKNSLVR »

zahlman wrote: post #179
includenotfound wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think. I still think this is a sign that they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously.

It's expensive if it wasn't part of the planning and design. The same as 'security' is expensive, or compliance with regulations is expensive.

It is also a choice to not do any or all of the above.

Re: Dario, Please

#195

Post by ozozozd »

closeparen wrote: post #167
Avicebron wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ~ye…

It’s to keep “the people running it accountable.” The context is agents ran by OpenAI/Anthropic doing damage outside.

There is no user-involved damage. No one is recklessly running agents by the thousands without air-gapped containers, except “the people” than run these labs.

Re: Dario, Please

#196

Post by ozozozd »

augment_me wrote: post #106
walt_grata wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then go broad. It being slightly challenging to legislation and hold people accountable as soon as the model does something.

Go broad and achieve nothing. EU has all of the AI tech it had 5 years ago, and has the same tech allowed to use as the US. What defines a model? What defines ownership of a process? If I make a wrapper to a remote VM that builds and executed a prompt, am I accountable? When I worked at a company in the EU, it was enough to apply a reversible linear transform to the data for it to be considered GDPR safe-according ac…

Yes. You are accountable. Quite obviously, I might add. Why would no one or anyone else be accountable?

Hell, you can slip and fall and hold the cleaning company accountable. (This might be a US thing. Likely because that fall might cost a lot in medical expenses, and your insurance will do whatever it takes to pass the liability.)

Re: Dario, Please

#197

Post by Refreeze5224 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #171
plastic041 wrote: post #163

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…

He can slow down his own company kind of like how Zelenskyy can just declare peace in Ukraine. It works a lot better if you can get the other sides to agree.

So in this example, the equivalent of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives and the very existence of their country for Dario is... losing lots of money?

What a ridiculous analogy to make.

Re: Dario, Please

#198

Post by ozozozd »

skybrian wrote: post #68
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.

Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? Finding someone to blame is neither necessary nor sufficient to fix a system so an accident doesn't happen again. It might act as as an incentive to fix a system, but it's less direct than actually working on fixing the system.

Umm because it costs money to defend your companies servers when someone “accidentally” hacks them.

Countries demand reparation for damages in war. Citizens of those countries sue for damages and win.

Accountability is not a foreign concept. And the point is to disincentivize negligence. Because negligence is cheaper. And in this case, accidental hacks are marketing spend.

Re: Dario, Please

#199

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

fn-mote wrote: post #85
fooker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> look at all the damage that did. Prevented a world war for 80+ years.

> Prevented Fact: There was no world war. Impossible to prove hypothesis: nuclear weapons prevented a world war. Facing the facts about nuclear weapons means owning the good (probably prevented wars) and the bad (at the very least there were severe environmental and economic consequences).

> Fact: There was no world war.

Akshually there is, and WW3 has been going on since 2010. (Mostly in places that aren't Europe.)

Re: Dario, Please

#200

Post by ozozozd »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #172

I think Anthropic just have no legitimacy to being the stewards of AI. They don't have a good track record. They are a private company without any governence that puts my interests into the equation. I am not US-based, thus I can't democratically influence them. Why should I want some batshit crazy, US-based technocrats deciding what I can and can't do with AI?

Not to mention they are the first case of a code repo leak I ever heard.

Reverse engineering, disassembling, cracking - we all heard. I never heard a company leaking the entire codebase of their product.

And, when people read the code, they aren’t even impressed.

Post reply on HN