Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipsum2 | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure they all do. Whether an air gap is warranted is evidently less obvious.

It's patently obvious at this point.

The models are going to be released to users who have internet access, you can't even do safety evals without internet. Not saying OpenAI did a good job monitoring here, but it's not avoidable.

These are often experimental models that haven't undergone full safety testing. Not comparable to publicly accessible models.

OK, how do you expect to do full safety testing without giving them the same tools they will have in reality.

Let them play on a fake isolated network if you want.

Letting them play on the open internet like this is irresponsible and stupid.

Sorry but it's obviously stupider and more irresponsible to release them to consumers without testing them in conditions matching real-world use first.

So this justifies the illegal action of hacking and defacing other servers on the internet, because they were ‘just testing in real world conditions’ using those servers?

If you want to argue they should test on the internet on others people’s servers, apart from facing the illegality, you should also consider if first testing them in more limited conditions would be a sensible first step.

Then maybe they shouldn't be released to customers?

There are other options here than always forward.

What if they actually don’t release these models, like they said they wouldn’t, because they’ve proven themselves to be out of control?

These companies keep shrieking that LLM agents will hack everything and kill us all if we let them get out uncontrolled. They then continue to run these agents with vague tasks and "sandbox" them with way too much access.

Either they are lying and not that scared of these agents, or they are so stupid that they don't do the one obvious fix.

Apparently news of the rogue AI being “smart enough to break containment” has been helping to drive the stock price up on the indicator that this signals “they getting close to AGI”.

The negligence in that light is by design and the lying continues to be incentivised.

Which is frustrating because the stories that have been coming out are "the bots evaded monitoring and broke out of containment and were more than willing to commit crimes" and they're going to sell this to some corporation that presumably has an IT department? If the story is that they're too smart to control who is going to be reckless enough to deploy them in their own environment?

The most recent claim of AGI is from Greg ‘what will take me to $1B’ Brockman. Now worth $30B on the back of stunts like this.

How disappointing.

While I think incompetence more likely than conspiracy for these particular events, they will be spun as signs of intelligent independent agents and this simply never should have happened if the right controls were in place. That they were not is deeply worrying.

the "it drives up potential stock prices" argument is a trap. it needs to be ignored and their claims need to be taken at face value, even if they're not intended to be

As I understand it the whole time all the agents involved where running on their device and using up tokens internally.

It’s like having water start flooding the street frommmy building; yes the flooding is impacting outside the building but the tap is still very much onsite and clearly there are missing condole as these are not autonomous systems they are running initiated prompts that are coming from inside the building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com