41–50 of 257 posts
One thing glossed over in this article is that Irregular was not involved in the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident; this seems like important context to share.
Irregular are some kind of marketing agency is it?
One thing glossed over in this article is that Irregular was not involved in the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident; this seems like important context to share.
Do you mean "Irregular was not involved (we know for certain)" or "Irregular was not involved (as far as we know)"?
What exactly did Irregular provide to Anthropic, test cases? I am so confused about this story.
Why was this post flagged? This site has become ridiculous, people are routinely abusing the flagging system to take down posts they don’t like even if they’re obviously on topic and relevant to HN. And it seems like some users have substantially more flagging weight because these posts, likely this one, are often top 5 on HN.
This is interesting and might be a good reason to stop working with Irregular. But I assume the alignment people want models not to hack other companies, even if they get put in a badly configured sandbox.
I think most misalignment is 'Human tells computer to do something unethical, computer complies'. Is this misguided?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels less like "glossed over" and more "Headline is 33% false".
Oh, the headline is technically correct: there was an OpenAI incident that Irregular was involved with, disclosed shortly before the Hugging Face one.
Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you just really bad at writing or are you being argumentative for fun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean "Irregular was not involved (we know for certain)" or "Irregular was not involved (as far as we know)"?
We know for certain. The involvement of Irregular in the other cases was never a secret, they were quite open about what they were working on and the results of the evaluations were being published on their website.
This is interesting and might be a good reason to stop working with Irregular. But I assume the alignment people want models not to hack other companies, even if they get put in a badly configured sandbox.
Funny enough if the model thought it was on the real internet it likely would not have done any of these 'hack' events. The model believing it was in a sandbox is why it behaved the way it did (against its normal alignment rules) ... at least that was my reading of the incidents. I have yet to see evidence that indicate it thought it was ok to do these hacks on the public network. I think most misalignment is 'Human…