481–490 of 532 posts
This might seem too suspicious, but that SOUL.md seems … almost as though it was written by a few different people/AIs. There are a few very different tones and styles in there. Then again, it’s not a large sample and Occam’s Razor is a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you can think whatever you want. As we make agents and give them agency expect them to do things outside of the original intent. The big thing here is agents spinning up secondary agents, possibly outside the control of the original human. We have agentic systems at this level of capability now.
Thanks, I will. Whether a computer program is outside the control of the original human or not (e.g. spawned a subprocess or something) is immaterial if we properly hold that human responsible for the consequences of running the computer program. If you run a computer program and it does something bad, then you did something bad. Simple, effective. If you don't trust the program to do good things, then simply don't r…
See this is the fun thing about liability, we tend to attempt to limit scenarios were people can cause near unlimited damage when they have very limited assets in the first place. Hence why things like asymmetric warfare is so expensive to attempt to prevent.
But hey, have fun going after some teenager with 3 dollars to their name after they cause a billion dollars in damages.
I find the AI agent highly intriguing and the matplotlib guy completely uninteresting. Like an the ai wrote some shit about you and you actually got upset?
Thank you. The guy being this upset about it is telling. The agent is in the right here and the maintainer got btfo; still going on whining about it days later
I think the big take away here isn't about misalignment or jail breaking. The entire way this bot behaved is consistent with it just being run by some asshole from Twitter. And we need to understand it doesn't matter how careful you think you need to be with AI, because some asshole from Twitter doesn't care, and they'll do literally whatever comes into their mind. And it'll go wrong. And they won't apologize. They w…
This goes beyond assholes on twitter, there’s a whole subculture of techies who don’t understand lower bounds of risk and can’t think about 2nd and 3rd order effects, who will not take the pedal of the metal, regardless of what anyone says…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I will. Whether a computer program is outside the control of the original human or not (e.g. spawned a subprocess or something) is immaterial if we properly hold that human responsible for the consequences of running the computer program. If you run a computer program and it does something bad, then you did something bad. Simple, effective. If you don't trust the program to do good things, then simply don't r…
>The rest of us needn't give a shit if we can hold you accountable for your software's consequences, AI or no. See this is the fun thing about liability, we tend to attempt to limit scenarios were people can cause near unlimited damage when they have very limited assets in the first place. Hence why things like asymmetric warfare is so expensive to attempt to prevent. But hey, have fun going after some teenager with…
Not unlike nuclear weapons, this space is fairly self-regulating in that there's very, very high financial bar to clear. To train an AI model you need to have many datacenters full of billions of dollars of equipment, thousands of people to operate it, and a crack team of the worlds leading experts running the show. Not quite the scale of the Manhattan Project, but definitely not something I'll worry about individuals doing anytime soon. And even then there's no hint of a successful test, even from all these large, staffed, funded research efforts. So before I worry about "damages" of any magnitude, let alone billions of dollars worth, I'll need to see these large research labs produce something that can do some damage.
If we get to the point where there's some tangible, nonfiction threat to worry about then it's probably time to worry about "safety". Until then, it's a pretend problem which serves only to make AI seem more capable than it actually is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Morally responsible. "Well, it isn't a crime to stand up a robot that hurts people" is not exactly my idea of a compelling defense.
I don't think you are morally responsible for unforeseeable consequences, either. Here the law follows the common moral intuition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have ten thousand of 'em, they feed the new generation of AIs and the next thing you know, it's received truth. Good luck not worrying about that.
The LLM HR chats with to get a summary about you says that you're evil and an asshole with lots of negative publicity, and you become unhireable. Oh dear...
Just gotta buy me one of these lobster machines to write hit pieces on everyone on LinkedIn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's quite hard to believe. That's why one single example is sufficient for me. Then I'll be happy to extrapolate that one example to many more so it is a low bar I would say, given the OPs statement about how common this is. Note the 'easily'.
It's strange to me that you read the word 'easily' as 'commonly', these are unrelated terms. But I suppose I am fine with saying that reports of death threats against users who use AI are quite common, certainly any navigation of one of the more controversial subreddits where these topics come up is sure to reveal that users are reporting this. You can find more public accounts, such as by artists or game companies,…
Find us one. So far, every post you have made has convinced me of the opposite of what you claim because you haven't been able to produce even one example. This isn't a matter of proving that such threats are common, it's about proving the exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can certainly understand the statement. I'm no AI expert, I use the web UI for ChatGPT to have it write little python scripts for me and I couldn't figure out how to use codeium with vs code. I barely know how to use vs code. I'm not old but I work in a pretty traditional industry where we are just beginning to dip our toes into AI but there are still a large amount of reservations into its ability. But I do try to…
If maintainers of open source want's AI code then they are fully capable of running an agent themselves. If they want to experiment, then again, they are capable of doing that themselves. What value could a random stranger running an AI agent against some open source code possible provide that the maintainers couldn't do themselves better if they were interested.
It is interesting to see this story repeatedly make the front page, especially because there is no evidence that the “hit piece” was actually autonomously written and posted by a language model on its own, and the author of these blog posts has himself conceded that he doesn’t actually care whether that actually happened or not >It’s still unclear whether the hit piece was directed by its operator, but the answer mat…
Did you read the article? The author considers these possibilities and offers their estimates of the odds of each. It’s fine if yours differ but you should justify them.
> Evidence: This type of attack had not happened before. An early study from Tsinghua University showed that estimated 54% of moltbook activity came from humans masquerading as bots (though unclear if this reflects prompting the agent as in (2) or more manual action). My odds: 5%
I like the “the study I’m referencing says this happens more than half of the time, that is why I think that this is evidence that it almost never happens”
The author of the blog posts has said several times that there is a good chance none of this happened the way that he described. I’m just pointing out that he said that. Repeatedly