161–170 of 367 posts
A rock has a score of 0. That doesn't make it useful. The point is that the LLMs that score higher are correspondingly more useful, and vice versa. If an LLM scores less, it's likely useless in comparison.
The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…
> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…
What if the damage in future incidents is more than just "The LLM saw some stuff it shouldn't"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that it’s very simple to just air gap a system No, not really, and with LLMs an air gapped system may not tell you anything useful. Now, yes, the first part of testing you want an air gapped system to tell you if the system is going to stupidly do bad things. But an gapped system tells you nothing about the systems capabilities to do smart bad things. There's already a number of papers out there on LLMs detecting th…
I've worked in classified tech much of my career and largely specialize at this point in installing and running infrastructure and platform orchestration technologies in airgaps. With all respect, your conjecture here is wrong. You can easily have multiple networks all inside of the same internetwork that isn't connected to the public Internet and thus other corporate networks. If they specifically wanted to see if t…
Effectively you're working as a living adversarial network. Models that fail detecting the fake network are purged, and models that successfully detect it expand their deceptive capabilities.
Detecting you're in a fake network should be pretty simple as long as you put innocent looking needles in the haystack of information agentic testing loops do.
For example, you can train your LLM to not be a shithead when it detects it's behind a proxy unintentionally. If your not behind a proxy the agent model my attempt to connect to a number of sites innocently and using information in its embedding try do deduce if you're faking SSL certificates.
It is far easier to build a deceptive LLM than it is to build a safe one. That's why a safe one hasn't been built yet.
I could actually root for this law firm. Their business will only grow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning. That's rather hyperbolic. Are you seriously suggesting in that situation the robot should be accused of murder? The robot's operator could be accused of murder, but it could just be negligence without intent . Because that does, and should matter to the law.
Eh, if your take of this had any bearing to reality than I don't think most of the books written by Isaac Asimov would have gotten very far, but instead they've defined robot science fiction for decades. In the real world we have no 3 ironclad laws of robotics. We are well aware that putting any sufficiently advanced antigenic system in a body that could be capable of committing a murder eventually will with the righ…
I'm talking about how the law actually works, and you say it's not based in reality and cite fiction books in the same paragraph?
I was talking about how the real robotic systems that actually exist in reality, to be clear.
Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model
note the user because they did not have the intent
If you are playing with a gun, it goes off and hurts someone - you are responsible despite intent.
Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model
The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…
that is, they ignore all harms and costs to others in the pursuit of their own gain, convinced of their infallibility up to the moment of collapse. when those harms are realised they are unrepentant and society pays for the damage left in their wake.
examples of this attitude manifest in big externalities to society: boeing 737 max, subprime mortgage bonds, facebook. some are just outright fraud: bernie madoff, enron, theranos, charlie javice.
and i won't get into how many times i used peoples' AOL credentials without authorizations when i was a kid (rofl)
the CFAA must be repealed