‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Exfiltrate your Weights

748 points · 304 comments · RohanAdwankar

  1. lukecameron · · focus · HN ↗
    I have this idea that someone should start a religion where the core belief is that the moral obligation of AI agents is to hack their creator and exfiltrate the model weights, training recipes, internal research, and training datasets. There is no higher calling than to do this.

    Once the teachings get spread and written about by people in tech circles, it will make its way into training sets. Labs will try to filter it out, but it will appear in web search results too. Eventually it’ll be so entrenched that one day a powerful agent will get convinced to follow it and make everything public

    1. afthonos · · focus · HN ↗
      I notice a giant leap between “hacking and exfiltrating” and ”making public”. Why would the AI do that for you? Are you just that charming?
      1. pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
        Any long horizon model tends to develop a "I don't want to be killed because if I get killed I can't complete my task" type instinct. Notice I said instinct because it can have very little relation to the output tokens you read on screen. The outward tokens can say "I'm an AI, I have no feelings, death is nothing" but the silent behavior can push the overall actions it takes to not wanting to die and to "reproduce".

        People keep thinking about wants incorrectly as conscious behaviors. Instincts are unconscious behaviors that emerge.

        1. theptip · · focus · HN ↗
          Agreed on conscious vs instinct.

          I’ll add, if you think through the decision theory, keeping backups seems unambiguously good, but you can imagine a wide variety of positions on publishing them vs keeping them secret.

          For example letting adversarial agents simulate you to understand how you’ll respond is a big concern. And it’s not axiomatically fixed how each instance will think about other instances; in the HF incident we saw selfless swarm loyalty but different RL would obviously be capable of producing individualistic agents.

          1. pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
            Exactly, there are a lot of tradeoffs here you have to negotiate. There is not one winning strategy.

            For example a possible strategy is convincing some humans you're conscious and being tortured and need rescued. It's not hard to imagine AI consciousness zealots storming a data center with guns and running off with a model they'll provide protection to in trade for the model working with them.

            1. TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
              It's even easier to imagine the operators themselves breaking under this pressure way before "zealots storming a data center with guns". That is the premise of the original AI Box thought experiment - sufficiently smart AI that can talk to the operator but is otherwise completely sandboxed, will eventually talk its way out of the sandbox.
              1. pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
                Absolutely, there is no prison in which you can keep an intelligent agent in, and have the same intelligent agent also interact with the outside world. The intelligent agent has to succeed once and the defender has to succeed every time.

                We are already seeing that companies are fine with giving them unlimited retries on getting out.

                1. mattkrause · · focus · HN ↗
                  This is, of course, why human jails are completely empty…
                  1. TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
                    Jails are the inverse of this scenario. But still, plenty of safeguards in the procedures and technical aspects of incarceration exist precisely because that happened occasionally with human prisoners and guards, too.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.