Hacker News Reader

Comment by pembrook | Hacker News Reader

Let's not be hyperbolic and manufacture more virality for OpenAI's marketing team.

We're talking about outdated message board comments, not murder. Any analogy between the two is not suitable.

I'm so sick of everybody pretending like internet bots posting content (anybody who has hosted a public signup form knows this has been a thing for 20+ years) is going to lead to the apocalypse.

You could have done this 2 years ago too with outdated models or 20 years ago with a manual script.

This is mildly interesting for us, annoying for the owner of the site affected, lazy on the part of OpenAI, and nothing more.

View on HN

> This is mildly interesting for us, annoying for the owner of the site affected, lazy on the part of OpenAI, and nothing more.

The agents were supposed to solve tasks alone and were not supposed to be aware of each other's existence. It's more than just mildly interesting that they made contact and spontaneously started to collaborate.

A lot of the progress on the frontier has been made using agent swarms.

So the story is basically: "Thing that was designed to collaborate with other agents collaborated with other agents"

I think you’re underestimating the risk that seemingly innocuous behaviours could easily tip over into disaster territory. At some point the escalating capabilities cross a threshold where it’s no longer wise to ignore “agents spontaneously posting content on the internet”.

Think of how complex biological behaviour emerges from relatively simpler (but still complex) chemistry - at some threshold the innocuous chemical reactions tip over into non-obvious effects that one would not predict starting purely from the chemistry. The question is, where is that threshold for AI systems? Have we already reached that threshold? Certainly seems like it to me.

TL;DR: It’s a loose cannon, that’s all I’m saying.

A loose canon for text generation where you can just unplug the server.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com