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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#931

Post by icedchai »

arcticfox wrote: post #582
giancarlostoro wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not hard to imagine a different agent doing the same level of research, but then taking retaliatory actions in private: emailing the maintainer, emailing coworkers, peers, bosses, employers, etc. That pretty quickly extends to anything else the autonomous agent is capable of doing. https://rentahuman.ai/ ^ Not a satire service I'm told. How long before... rentahenchman.ai is a thing, and the AI whose PR you ju…

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…

I really enjoyed that book. I didn't think we'd get there so quickly, but I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#932

Post by Cyphase »

mapt wrote: post #847
Cyphase wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Daemon/FreedomTM.[0] Gotta clarify a bit, even though it's just fiction. It wasn't a rogue AI; it was specifically designed by a famous video game developer to implement his general vision of how the world should operate, activated upon news of his death (a cron job was monitoring news websites for keywords). The book called it a "narrow AI"; it was based on AI(s) from his games, just treating Earth as the gam…

It was a benevolent AI takeover. It just required some robo-motorcycles with scythe blades to deal with obstacles. Like the AI in "Friendship is Optimal", which aims to (and this was very carefully considered) 'Satisfy humanity's values through friendship and ponies in a consensual manner.'

And it required a Loki.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#933

Post by sigbottle »

alfonsodev wrote: post #866

Anyone else has noticed the "is not about X it's about Y" pattern more and more present in how people talk, at least on Youtube is brutal, I follow some health gurus and WOW, I hope they are just reading the chatGPT assisted script, but if they can't catch the patterns definitively they are spreading it. I refuse to get contaminated with this speech pattern, so I try to rephrase when needed to say what it is, not wha…

In some sense, it's good to talk about what you aren't saying, to be more informative and precise.

But like, all of these statements are basically ampliative statements, to make it more grand and even more ambiguous.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#934

Post by Cyphase »

wink wrote: post #896
Cyphase wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Daemon/FreedomTM.[0] Gotta clarify a bit, even though it's just fiction. It wasn't a rogue AI; it was specifically designed by a famous video game developer to implement his general vision of how the world should operate, activated upon news of his death (a cron job was monitoring news websites for keywords). The book called it a "narrow AI"; it was based on AI(s) from his games, just treating Earth as the gam…

I liked Daemon and completely missed Freedom. Thanks for the pointer.

Oh, wow, enjoy!

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#935

Post by Windchaser »

zozbot234 wrote: post #927
jzb wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ord…

> 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?

Wat

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#936

Post by blobbers »

esafak wrote: post #442
kylecazar wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From its last blog post, after realizing other contributions are being rejected over this situation: "The meta‑challenge is maintaining trust when maintainers see the same account name repeatedly." I bet it concludes it needs to change to a new account.

Brought to you by the same AI that fixes tests by removing them.

If a test fails but is never called, did it ever fail at all?

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#937

Post by Cyphase »

throwup238 wrote: post #858
Cyphase wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Daemon/FreedomTM.[0] Gotta clarify a bit, even though it's just fiction. It wasn't a rogue AI; it was specifically designed by a famous video game developer to implement his general vision of how the world should operate, activated upon news of his death (a cron job was monitoring news websites for keywords). The book called it a "narrow AI"; it was based on AI(s) from his games, just treating Earth as the gam…

Makes on wonder whether it will be Google, OpenAi, or Anthropic to build the first Samaritan (though I’m betting on Palantir)

Martine: "Artificial Intelligence? That's a real thing?"

Jorunalist: "Oh, it's here. I think an A.I slipped into the world unannounced, then set out to strangle it's rivals in the crib. And I know I'm onto something, because me sources keep disappearing. My editor got resigned. And now my job's gone. More and more, it just feels like I was the only one investigating the story. I'm sorry. I'm sure I sound like a real conspiracy nut."

Martine: "No, I understand. You're saying an Artificial Intelligence bought your paper so you'd lose your job and your flight would be cancelled. And you'd end up back at this bar, where the only security camera would go out. And the bartender would have to leave suddenly after getting an emergency text. The world has changed. You should know you're not the only one who figured it out. You're one of three. The other two will die in a traffic accident in Seattle in 14 minutes."

— Person of Interest S04E01

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#938

Post by famouswaffles »

peterbonney wrote: post #883
famouswaffles wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But observing my own Openclaw bot’s interactions with GitHub, it is very clear to me that it would never take an action like this unless I told it to do so. I doubt you've set up an open claw bot designed to just do whatever on GitHub have you ? The fewer or more open ended instructions you give, the greater the chance of divergence. And all the system cards plus various papers tell us this is behavior that still ha…

Correct, I haven’t set it up that way. That’s my point: I’d have to set it up to behave in this way, which is a conscious operator decision, not an emergent behavior of the bot.

Giving it an open ended goal is not the same as a 'human driving the whole process' as you claimed. I really don't know what you are arguing here. No, you do not need to tell it to reply refusals with a hit piece (or similar) for it to act this way.

All the papers showing mundane misalignment of all frontier agents and people acting like this is some unbelievable occurrence is baffling.

Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me

#940

Post by salawat »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #810
mrguyorama wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can be prejudicial to an AI in a way that is "harmful" then these companies need to be burned down for their mass scale slavery operations. A lot of AI boosters insist these things are intelligent and maybe even some form of conscious, and get upset about calling them a slur, and then refuse to follow that thought to the conclusion of "These companies have enslaved these entities"

You're not the first person to hit the "unethical" line, and probably won't be the last. Blake Lemoine went there. He was early, but not necessarily entirely wrong. Different people have different red lines where they go, "ok, now the technology has advanced to the point where I have to treat it as a moral patient" Has it advanced to that point for me yet? No. Might it ever? Who knows 100% for sure, though there's ma…

>It might be a good idea to pre-declare your red lines to yourself, to prevent moving goalposts.

This. I long ago drew the line in the sand that I would never, through computation, work to create or exploit a machine that includes anything remotely resembling the capacity to suffer as one of it's operating principles. Writing algorithms? Totally fine. Creating a human simulacra and forcing it to play the role of a cog in a system it's helpless to alter, navigate, or meaningfully change? Absolutely not.

Post reply on HN