Thread

1. bananaflag · 1790163465 · focus · HN ↗

   > Describing them as “superintelligence” or “rogue models” ascribes agency to products rather than to the companies building them. This framing markets these companies’ products as “superhuman” and, at the same time, helps the companies evade accountability for their actions.

   If someone discovered how to summon demons to aid them in robbing banks the main issue wouldn't be "but who has the responsibility for the crime, the human or the demon", it would be "OMG DEMONS".

   Seriously, I don't get what sort of world these people are living in.

   1. rubendev · 1790164184 · focus · HN ↗

      That's not what the LLM hacking accidents have been like at all though. To improve the analogy, it would be like summoning a totally passive demon, giving it weapons and placing it next to a bank, place a small fence around it, and then command it to perform a totally safe "exercise" that is exactly like robbing a real bank.

      LLMs do not have agency, they are just producing tokens based on a prompt that a person entered, and some of these tokens can trigger the tools that a person gave them access to.

      1. hobom · 1790166411 · focus · HN ↗

         This is not a good analogy for what happened. The LLMs were asked to obtain a flag by hacking a very specific internal target. They obtained the flag via cheating, and all the hacking that followed was targeting something entirely outside of the scope given to the agents, and an attempt to cover up the cheating.

         Using your analogy would be like saying that because I gave my employee the task to do my groceries, I shouldn't be surprised to hear that they spend all my money on drugs because after all I gave them the task to spend my money.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.