Hacker News Reader

Comment by nwjang | Hacker News Reader

If anything, the fact that these systems are non-deterministic seems like an argument for stronger monitoring and tighter constraints, not less operator responsibility.

View on HN

The frontier LLM model makers have to push the edge to make new discoveries. You don't know what guardrails are needed until it hits you in the face (reusing walking in the dark analogy).

Think of all the policies governments pass after the fact.

> The frontier LLM model makers have to push the edge to make new discoveries. You don't know what guardrails are needed until it hits you in the face (reusing walking in the dark analogy).

Guardrails? Restricting access to certain networks is supposed to be hard in 2026?

> Restricting access to certain networks is supposed to be hard in 2026?

Part of the power of LLM agents is that they can discover information on the internet as part of responding to a prompt. What kind of Allowlist or realistic denylist would permit that while also preventing them from accessing an obscure public wiki or Huggingface?

Let them access a cached copy of the internet, they are crawling the internet for training data anyways.

When testing, you restrict to a LAN which simulates the real internet. This would not be hard for a company which already copied the entire space-time of the internet. The LAN should be physically disconnected from the real internet. This is the first thing off the top of my head, and I have zero credentials in this space. C'mon.

Not sure we need to experience all possible issues to mandate certain things. We don't do that in other areas either, no?

Nevermind, I have no idea honestly.

Not just on prediction but in parts also based on just not wanting certain risks. We can and do deem some things inherently risky, up to the point of banning them even.

Why wasn't it airgapped, for example? How was the action not allowed? Or do you mean in some weak sense, not in a hard not possible? RL systems doing weird and expected things wouldn't exactly be new, no?

We police people working with all sorts of dangerous things, if we think AI dangerous why not do that here, too? We don't just leave things up to people on the ground or companies.

Edit: I think the post I replied to changed a bit - nevermind. A complex topic.

I read more about the incident, and was offering up way too much opinion not grounded in 'fact' (barring philosphical evidence).

It's a complex topic for sure.

I stand by my opinions about frontier work, pushing thr edge, and connecting ideas.

But I have no idea, and haven't given much thought to what it means to enforce regulation that would also slow the forward advancement of technology, the economy, etc.

I posted this before I realized they ran the experiment with reduced operating principles. My bad.

I have no clue what they're up to, but I do expect experimentation. But I don't really know how they operated, or why.

And it's less interesting to me than pushing the edge, and I must have given them the benefit of doubt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com