If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look!
-
Both these replies point at a common thread: these news stories represent a grotesque failure of either the vendors or their products.
If the agents did in fact “go rogue” and cause damage, even in the hands of the people who should be their most competent operators, then the product is unpredictable, unreliable, and unfit for purpose.
If the product is •not• in fact unfit for purpose, then that means there's some combination of negligence and malice behind these incidents, and they are at •best• knowing harm in service of a marketing stunt or (as Parsons argue) something even worse.
@inthehands here is my analysis.
It is both. These posts are just... Delusional
-
If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look! we’ve got one too! oh no! look at us!!” story.
@inthehands who cares if it escaped containment or not, this does show that humans are bad at aligning AI because we have a lot of intrinsic beliefs we don't imbue in the RL process. Few humans would think hacking you examinator to get the answer is a valid way to pass an exam, so that never gets RL-ed against.
If you think that it's not impressive that a thing you call "stochastic parrot" can chain together exploits to breach Huggingface, you're... frankly not paying attention imo
-
If these incidents were truly as represented, they'd be colossal embarrassments. The AI vendors would be trying to bury them, not trumpet them.
@inthehands To paraphrase: I don’t want AIs that do crimes. I also don’t want any products whatsoever from companies that pull such bullshit marketing BS.
-
If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look! we’ve got one too! oh no! look at us!!” story.
@inthehands “più vera del vero, tale è la simulazione”, così sintetizza Baudrillard.
-
If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look! we’ve got one too! oh no! look at us!!” story.
@inthehands A very pro AI blog quoted some posts from X that claim that of course it's not a PR stunt because... well... "just because". https://neunetz.com/naturlich-war-es-kein-pr-stunt/
The quoted posts from X seem to assume that the AI companies are a normal money earning industry. And not a money burning one that is desperate for government bailouts and contracts....
-
If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look! we’ve got one too! oh no! look at us!!” story.
@inthehands my dog escaped the yard again. Give me a trillion dollars because I'm sure he'll show the path to AGI soon.
-
@isagalaev @Npars01 @inthehands Hell, they've tried to prosecute people for "hacking" when merely finding, accessing and reporting public s3 buckets. But I guess if the mystical AI does it, it's not criminal or even incompetence.
@r343l @isagalaev @Npars01 @inthehands
Or pressing F12 to view source. LOL
-
@Arapalla @inthehands
It does feel like an arms race. They know there's too many players in the game for all of them to ever turn a profit. But if one US AI firm manages to take out all the others, then they might eek out a profit from companies & users who won't use a Chinese AI. -
If these incidents were truly as represented, they'd be colossal embarrassments. The AI vendors would be trying to bury them, not trumpet them.
@inthehands It smelled of an ad for the IPO to me.
But I guess what we need is actual proof.
-
If you doubted that the “oh noes our agent escaped containment” schtick from OpenAI was anything other than marketing, note Anthropic’s “look look! we’ve got one too! oh no! look at us!!” story.
-
Both these replies point at a common thread: these news stories represent a grotesque failure of either the vendors or their products.
If the agents did in fact “go rogue” and cause damage, even in the hands of the people who should be their most competent operators, then the product is unpredictable, unreliable, and unfit for purpose.
If the product is •not• in fact unfit for purpose, then that means there's some combination of negligence and malice behind these incidents, and they are at •best• knowing harm in service of a marketing stunt or (as Parsons argue) something even worse.
@inthehands If this situation was intended as an advertisement to get more money out of certain investors, I do hope it backfires. And backfires to such an intend that they have to pull their product OFF the market completely.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
