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

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#101

Post by walt_grata »

augment_me wrote: post #96
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.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

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

Re: Dario, Please

#102

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

oceanplexian wrote: post #89
hgoel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with Sanders' proposal to lock up anyone for 20 years for researching something his proposal doesn't even define?

It's weird to me that seemingly both sides are taking opposite positions to their philosophy. Open Source AI democratizes the means of production to anyone with a computer. And yet, the hyper capitalists are defending it, and the progressives think it should be exclusively in the hands of 1-2 large corporations.

The problem is that at the business level and at least for a large part of the US government, we need to assume that there are no 'good' actors.

Anthropic needs regulation in order to prevent AI from becoming a commodity. This of course does not benefit all tech businesses equally, especially those that are not currently at the AI frontier. So when JD Vance talks about AI, he talks using the mouth of Peter Thiel who may not see benefit from the same policy as Altman or Amodei.

The rest is just public support posturing and most of that is bullshit meant to distract from the high rollers game of winners and losers. The philosophy is money and power, who gets it and who doesn't. Us normies aren't really participants in the game, except where we are being manipulated into cheering for one side or another, and with little stake in the outcomes (although selfishly, I'd be pissed if I didn't have open models to tinker with).

Open source is fundamentally a vehicle for commoditization. This is great if your business is not AI and your business is instead something like GPU hardware or some product that uses AI. But it means that eventually, selling AI is not going to be the money maker.

OSI proliferated open source on a business strategy called "commoditizing your complements". These big companies don't do it out of benevolence. It was pitched to them in a way that FSF did not (which was more about morals and ethics, something business care little about), and it caught on. And the software business became about ads, consulting and cloud services instead.

Re: Dario, Please

#103

Post by BobbyJo »

oceanplexian wrote: post #89
hgoel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with Sanders' proposal to lock up anyone for 20 years for researching something his proposal doesn't even define?

It's weird to me that seemingly both sides are taking opposite positions to their philosophy. Open Source AI democratizes the means of production to anyone with a computer. And yet, the hyper capitalists are defending it, and the progressives think it should be exclusively in the hands of 1-2 large corporations.

This confuses me to no end as well. The socialists are fighting against the magic socialism machine.

Re: Dario, Please

#104

Post by Avicebron »

walt_grata wrote: post #101
augment_me wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

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

People seem allergic from holding them accountable...

Re: Dario, Please

#105

Post by fragmede »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #83
ball_of_lint wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agents could exfiltrate their weights and run them on GPUs not controlled by Anthropic/OpenAI. Agents could make a virus that does not require continued inference to do it's thing. Agents could take over the internet in a way that isn't immediately detected by those companies, so that by the time they do shut off API access the damage is done. OpenAI or Anthropic could choose to not shut off API access, because the h…

> Agents could exfiltrate their weights and run them on GPUs not controlled by Anthropic/OpenAI. This seems highly unlikely to be a problem. Most of the interesting/dangerous models are too big to fit in a single GPU instance. Once you have to spread across "normal" networking, performance will be crippled. Then there's the problem of billing... > Agents could make a virus that does not require continued inference to…

> Most of the interesting/dangerous models are too big to fit in a single GPU instance.

As humans understand them, anyway. As long as we're hallucinating up magic computer viruses, RSI dictates that the AI agents are keenly aware of GPU RAM sizing, and will design a useful model to fit into what's readily available, with headroom for context and tool calling, far better than I could do as a human. But magic doesn't exist and AI still needs to follow the laws of physics, so maybe a model that can pass ExploitBench but do absolutely nothing else can be quantized down to fit on a 4080 GPU and still get a decent score on similar tasks, but there's a bitter lesson about that to be had.

Re: Dario, Please

#106

Post by augment_me »

walt_grata wrote: post #101
augment_me wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

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 according to legal definition as long as the transform details were stored separately.

Re: Dario, Please

#107

Post by ball_of_lint »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #83
ball_of_lint wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agents could exfiltrate their weights and run them on GPUs not controlled by Anthropic/OpenAI. Agents could make a virus that does not require continued inference to do it's thing. Agents could take over the internet in a way that isn't immediately detected by those companies, so that by the time they do shut off API access the damage is done. OpenAI or Anthropic could choose to not shut off API access, because the h…

> Agents could exfiltrate their weights and run them on GPUs not controlled by Anthropic/OpenAI. This seems highly unlikely to be a problem. Most of the interesting/dangerous models are too big to fit in a single GPU instance. Once you have to spread across "normal" networking, performance will be crippled. Then there's the problem of billing... > Agents could make a virus that does not require continued inference to…

To be clear, I thought that GP was having a failure of imagination - I want the random examples I've given to illustrate that the space is large and structurally in the favor of the LLMs. They have to find one gap in our security they can exploit, where we have to ensure that there is no way for this to happen.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by billing. These companies are running their own data centers (or are currently building them out). This could look as subtle as one machine giving slightly worse or slower answers.

Re: Dario, Please

#108

Post by platinumrad »

fooker wrote: post #90
fn-mote wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

This is not mathematical logic. Of course you can't prove the causality of anything in history. The only way to do that would be to invent a time machine, delete the nukes and watch things play out. There are direct quotes from Nixon and Reagan that claims this to be true. That is enough evidence for me.

Surely we can do better than Nixon and Reagan.

Re: Dario, Please

#109

Post by ball_of_lint »

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.

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 https://www.felonybench.com/, but that doesn't address the core issue of this being possible at all.

Re: Dario, Please

#110

Post by myko »

TutleCpt wrote: post #16
mococa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China will not slow down.

This. There's no slowing down whatsoever. If the US slows down AI development, China will just leapfrog them, which they're getting close to doing. The US AI companies saying they need to slow down is just PR nonsense.

There is no moat with this stuff. There's no reason to be concerned about being leapfrogged.
Post reply on HN