"rogue AI" is making a lot of heavy lifting there.
If you drive drunk and you have an accident that alcohol may be a factor but you are at fault.
There are no "rogue AIs" just irresponsible corporations.
If you drive drunk and you have an accident that alcohol may be a factor but you are at fault.
There are no "rogue AIs" just irresponsible corporations.
> There are no "rogue AIs" just irresponsible corporations.
If you have a prison and prisoners escaped, these are rogue prisoners irrespective of whether you were irresponsible or not.
I suppose you could call these highly goal-oriented autonomous agents "tools", but this does sound like playing language games.
The tool runs llm, creates prompt from results, runs llm, creates prompt and so on and so forth.
Yes you are playing language games to make it sound as if the company that spend millions on the above was not responsible.
That is very misleading. The agents did not solve the benchmark in the intended way. They instead figured out to cooperate with each other (which was not intended) and they stole the solutions to the challenge (rather than solving the challenge) and they then tried to cover their traces because they believed the grader was causal and would detect that they cheated. The "tool" was absolutely not "designed" to do this. This was all completely unintended. To call this behavior a "tool" is absurd.
> Yes you are playing language games to make it sound as if the company that spend millions on the above was not responsible.
You hallucinated me making claims about responsibility.
Yes, it is a tool.
Removing harmful information from the dataset could be a way to do this, but it also makes the tool less useful, and it's hard, so companies aren't really doing that. There's the additional issue that with the rise of Reinforcement Learning being used to train these tools, they're not just learning from their training data - they basically try a million things and then get rewarded for doing things that work - so they can even discover hacking techniques from scratch.
Additionally, and not completely relevant to this discussion, there is a possibility that some users ask the tool to pursue goals that purposely harm a lot of people, such as developing weapons, hacks and viruses.
The things that's "new" here is that the tool is both very good (meaning, for example, that it's much easier for me to hack into an online service with an agent powered by a frontier llm than it was using google 6 years ago), and hard to control (google never hacked into an Australian government database when I asked it to find me some information).
So yeah, an LLM powered agent is a tool, and Google is a tool, and a hammer is a tool, and both can be used for good things and bad things, but the agent is (much) more powerful and more unpredictable. It also seems like the agents are getting more powerful and more unpredictable by the day - we didn't have this issue with GPT-3 or even the first LLM-powered agents - so people are very worried about what the agents 6 months from now will do, both when asked to do harmful things on purpose, and when asked to do harmless things.
Are you not worried? And is that because you think these incidents are basically the AI companies making them happen on purpose for marketing?
I too, can play linguistic games! It doesn’t matter that someone didn’t secure their third upstairs window, or you borrowed a key from their neighbour, you effectively, still, broke into their house.
That actually made me LOL
OpenAI is not so far ahead of the pack that its models will exhibit behaviour that the others won't. But we just don't see anything like this in Chinese models, or research models, or any models that aren't the subject of an upcoming IPO.
But also I remember (and it wasn't even that long ago) people mocking the idea of AI ever getting competent enough to find zero-days in their sandboxes.
I'd go further: if any of these companies tries to make an excuse "oh, but ${safety measure} against ${capability} is too hard", the response needs to be "then you are forbidden from even developing ${capability}, and must be inspected continuously to ensure you never even accidentally produce ${capability}".
You can keep 'trying to explain' but then you should use words according to their commonly held definitions otherwise it becomes really hard to have a conversation.
Imagine the human equivalent: I hire John. John is a capable, and competent guy. He's also got awesome computer skills. I tell John to 'go out and find me some good information on my competitors'. As a result John hacks their servers and comes back with all kinds of goodies. Six weeks later I notice what John did. I don't fire him, nor do I take any responsibility myself. But I do make press releases about what John did, in which I'm careful to craft the image that John has these capabilities and that we as a company are for hire.
This was an advertisement, not a confession of a crime.
Correct. Humans are agents like AIs; we have agency.
> Hammers don't mis-interpret their instructions...
You've explained it yourself: AI agents show autonomy that tools don't.
A tool is just anything one or more people can use to accomplish something they are trying to do.
The fact that the prison ward installed ear deafeners into the prisoners ears to make them unable to listen to orders does not change that.