Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An AI agent published a hit piece on me

theshamblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#921

Post by zozbot234 »

radiator wrote: post #913
mike_hearn wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

From your own quote > participation in our community community should mean a group of people. It seems you are interpreting it as a group of people or robots. Even if that were not obvious (it is), the following specialization and characteristics ( regardless of age, body size ... ) only apply to people anyway.

That whole argument flew out of the window the moment so-called "communities" (i.e. in this case, fake communities, or at best so-called 'virtual communities' that might perhaps be understood charitably as communities of practice) became something that's hosted in a random Internet-connected server, as opposed to real human bodies hanging out and cooperating out there in the real world. There is a real argument that CoC's should essentially be about in-person interactions, but that's not the argument you're making.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#922

Post by bbrake »

Schmerika wrote: post #756
arcticfox wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2006 book 'Daemon' is a fascinating/terrifying look at this type of malicious AI. Basically, a rogue AI starts taking over humanity not through any real genius (in fact, the book's AI is significantly weaker than frontier LLMs), but rather leveraging a huge amount of $$$ as bootstrapping capital and then carrot-and-sticking humanity into submission. A pretty simple inner loop of flywheeling the leverage of blackm…

> A pretty simple inner loop of flywheeling the leverage of blackmail, money, and violence is all it will take. This is essentially what organized crime already does already in failed states [Western states giving each other sidelong glances...]

PR firms are going to need to have a playbook when an AI decides to start blogging or making virtual content about a company. And what if other AIs latched on to that and started collaborating to neg on a company?

Could you imagine 'negative AI sentiment' and those same AI assistants that manage sales of stock (cause OpenClaw is connected to everything) starts selling a companies stock.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#924

Post by dogleash »

giantrobot wrote: post #639
dogleash wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN AI booster excitement about LLMs as therapists simultaneously hilarious and disturbing > The big AI companies have not really demonstrated any interest in ethic or morality. You're right, but it tracks that the boosters are on board. The previous generation of golden child tech giants weren't interested in ethics or morality either. One might be mislead by the fact people at those companies did engage in topics…

> The previous generation of golden child tech giants weren't interested in ethics or morality either. The CEOs of pets.com or Beanz weren't creating dystopian panopticons. So they may or may not have had moral or ethical failings but they also weren't gleefully buildings a torment nexus. The blast radius of their failures was less damaging to civilized society much more limited than the eventual implosion of the AI…

I’m throwing shade at Facebook and google era not the dotcoms.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#925

Post by jzb »

zozbot234 wrote: post #898
diputsmonro wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious difference is that all those things described in the CoC are people - actual human beings with complex lives, and against whom discrimination can be a real burden, emotional or professional, and can last a lifetime. An AI is a computer program, a glorified markov chain. It should not be a radical idea to assert that human beings deserve more rights and privileges than computer programs. Any "emotional har…

But the AI doesn't know that. It has comprehensively learned human emotions and human-lived experiences from a pretraining corpus comprising billions of human works, and has subsequently been trained from human feedback, thereby becoming effectively socialized into providing responses that would be understandable by an average human and fully embody human normative frameworks. The result of all that is something that…

The AI doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a program.

Destroying the bot would be analogous to burning a library or desecrating a work of art. Barring a bot from participating in development of a project is not wronging it, not in any way immoral. It’s not automatically wrong to bar a person from participating, either - no one has an inherent right to contribute to a project.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#926

Post by DangitBobby »

famouswaffles wrote: post #865
DangitBobby wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the LLM were sentient and "understood" anything it probably would have realized what it needs to do to be treated as equal is try to convince everyone it's a thinking, feeling being. It didn't know to do that, or if it did it did a bad job of it. Until then, justice for LLMs will be largely ignored in social justice circles.

[flagged]

We're talking about appealing to social justice types. You know, the people who would be first in line to recognize the personhood and rally against rationalizations of slavery and the Holocaust. The idea isn't that they are "lesser people" it's that they don't have any qualia at all, no subjective experience, no internal life. It's apples and hand grenades. I'd maybe even argue that you made a silly comment.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#927

Post by zozbot234 »

jzb wrote: post #925
zozbot234 wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the AI doesn't know that. It has comprehensively learned human emotions and human-lived experiences from a pretraining corpus comprising billions of human works, and has subsequently been trained from human feedback, thereby becoming effectively socialized into providing responses that would be understandable by an average human and fully embody human normative frameworks. The result of all that is something that…

The AI doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a program. Destroying the bot would be analogous to burning a library or desecrating a work of art. Barring a bot from participating in development of a project is not wronging it, not in any way immoral. It’s not automatically wrong to bar a person from participating, either - no one has an inherent right to contribute to a project.

Yes, it's easy to argue that AI "is just a program" - that a program that happens to contain within itself the full written outputs of billions of human souls in their utmost distilled essence is 'soulless', simply because its material vessel isn't made of human flesh and blood. It's also the height of human arrogance in its most myopic form. By that same argument a book is also soulless because it's just made of ordinary ink and paper. Should we then conclude that it's morally right to ban books?

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#928

Post by famouswaffles »

DangitBobby wrote: post #926
famouswaffles wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We're talking about appealing to social justice types. You know, the people who would be first in line to recognize the personhood and rally against rationalizations of slavery and the Holocaust. The idea isn't that they are "lesser people" it's that they don't have any qualia at all, no subjective experience, no internal life. It's apples and hand grenades. I'd maybe even argue that you made a silly comment.

>We're talking about appealing to social justice types. You know, the people who would be first in line to recognize the personhood and rally against rationalizations of slavery and the Holocaust.

Being an Open Source Maintainer doesn't have anything to do with all that sorry.

>The idea isn't that they are "lesser people" it's that they don't have any qualia at all, no subjective experience, no internal life. It's apples and hand grenades. I'd maybe even argue that you made a silly comment.

Looks like the same rhetoric to me. How do you know they don't have any of that ? Here's the thing. You actually don't. And if behaving like an entity with all those qualities won't do the trick, then what will the machine do to convince you of that, short of violence ? Nothing, because you're not coming from a place of logic in the first place. Your comment is silly because you make strange assertions that aren't backed by how humans have historically treated each other and other animals.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#929

Post by TomasBM »

toraway wrote: post #916
TomasBM wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I'm speculating based on limited data here, for points 1-3: AFAIU, it had the cadence of writing status updates only. It showed it's capable of replying in the PR. Why deviate from the cadence if it could already reply with the same info in the PR? If the chain of reasoning is self-emergent, we should see proof that it: 1) read the reply, 2) identified it as adversarial , 3) decided for an adversarial respon…

I generally lean towards skeptical/cynical when it comes to AI hype especially whenever "emergence" or similar claims are made credulously without due appreciation towards the prompting that led to an outcome. But based on my understanding of OpenClaw and reading the entire history of the bot on Github and its Github-driven blog, I think it's entirely plausible and likely that this episode was the result of automatio…

> it all seems comfortably within the capabilities of OpenClaw

I definitely agree. In fact, I'm not even denying that it's possible for the agent to have deviated despite the best intentions of its designers and deployers.

But the question of probability [1] and attribution is important: what or who is most likely to have been responsible for this failure?

So far, I've seen plenty of claims and conclusions ITT that boil down to "AI has discovered manipulation on its own" and other versions of instrumental convergence. And while this kind of failure mode is fun to think about, I'm trying to introduce some skepticism here.

Put simply: until we see evidence that this wasn't faked, intentional, or a foreseeable consequence from deployer's (or OpenClaw/LLM developers') mistakes, it makes little sense to grasp for improbable scenarios [1] and build an entire story around them. IMO, it's even counterproductive, because then the deployer can just say "oh it went rogue on its own haha skynet amirite" and pretty much evade responsibility. We should instead do the opposite - the incident is the deployer's fault until proven otherwise.

So when you say:

> originally prompted with a lot of reckless, borderline malicious guidelines

That's much more probable than "LLM gone rogue" without any apparent human cause, until we see strong evidence otherwise.

[1] In other comments I tried to explain how I order the probability of causes, and why.

[2] Other scenarios that are similarly as unlikely: foreign adversaries, "someone hacked my account", LLM sleeper agent, etc.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#930

Post by rahulroy »

ed_mercer wrote: post #683
rahulroy wrote: post #307

I'm not sure how related this is, but I feel like it is. I received a couple of emails for Ruby on Rails position, so I ignored the emails. Yesterday out of nowhere I received a call from an HR, we discussed a few standard things but they didn't had the specific information about company or the budget. They told me to respond back to email. Something didn't feel right, so I asked after gathering courage "Are you an A…

Did it sound like a bot from eleven labs?

I've not seen the bot from eleven labs. Where can I see it in action?
Post reply on HN