71–80 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.
Honesty does not require intelligence e.g. good honest food. The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.
It's the job of AISI to do that. Here[0] is the actual report. It should be this part from the technical report[1]: "In the most serious case, an AI agent (Mythos 5) decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack. As a result, the AI agent created a GitHub account and then tried to convince an open-source repository maintainer to accept a malicious GitHub pull request (PR), including by c…
Is it AISI's job to waste the time and resources of open source projects by attempting to spread malware? Should weapon manufacturers test their weapons by starting wars? I would expect more responsibility from a government agency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake – rather than a malicious attempt No, not false. The bot was correct. Malice requires intelligence.
An "honest mistake" requires the same amount of intelligence as malice. What weird pedantry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your point is that we should regulate AI as least as strictly as industrial vehicles, I agree.
Afaik anyone can buy a bulldozer. Whether or not you are licensed to operate it is a different story, but there's nothing stopping you short of your conscience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a style that appears to deny the very first definition most dictionaries give for "intelligence" > the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s nice in theory, but as these things get better and cheaper this kind of capability is going to drop from nation states to script kiddies. That future is coming, I don’t see any way around it. We can round up all the bored teenagers we want, but it’s not putting the genie back. Better start adjusting our systems to account for it.
Ever read the Anarchist Cookbook? Anybody tech inclined with a hint of mischief in them, from a certain era, has. It's a list of all sorts of awful things you can do, mostly with household ingredients, and a few minutes. I think its overall impact on society was pretty much zero. Actually it may have been overall positive because I expect plenty of peoples first experience with things like thermite came from that boo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
> the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
It's the job of AISI to do that. Here[0] is the actual report. It should be this part from the technical report[1]: "In the most serious case, an AI agent (Mythos 5) decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack. As a result, the AI agent created a GitHub account and then tried to convince an open-source repository maintainer to accept a malicious GitHub pull request (PR), including by c…
Is it AISI's job to waste the time and resources of open source projects by attempting to spread malware? Should weapon manufacturers test their weapons by starting wars? I would expect more responsibility from a government agency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s nice in theory, but as these things get better and cheaper this kind of capability is going to drop from nation states to script kiddies. That future is coming, I don’t see any way around it. We can round up all the bored teenagers we want, but it’s not putting the genie back. Better start adjusting our systems to account for it.
Ever read the Anarchist Cookbook? Anybody tech inclined with a hint of mischief in them, from a certain era, has. It's a list of all sorts of awful things you can do, mostly with household ingredients, and a few minutes. I think its overall impact on society was pretty much zero. Actually it may have been overall positive because I expect plenty of peoples first experience with things like thermite came from that boo…
TM 31-210 on the other hand will not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munitions...