Thread

1. mohsen1 · 1790238212 · focus · HN ↗

   I listened to Jensen Huang's interview with Ezra Klien and it was so refreshing to hear it from an engineer. Jensen framed it as OpenAI's responsibility and recklessness which I agree with. Jensen thinks it's an engineering problem to build better sandboxes.

   It's irresponsible for OpenAI to give unaligned agents a prompt to 'go hack' and internet access. They know better, so I am thinking they might have other intentions to let those swarms have any sort of internet access.

   1. schainks · 1790268434 · focus · HN ↗

      I see this in a couple ways:

      - Jensen's framing is exactly what a weapons manufacturer would say.

      - There are no rules for engagement when it comes to AIs attacking other systems, I guess? People in power clearly want this grey zone to be as large as possible before The People force them to do otherwise. Not ideal.

      1. jeremyjh · 1790287910 · focus · HN ↗

         The rules for engagement are all the computer crime law already on the books. Those laws don't have any escape clauses based on the particular tools used to commit the crimes. The agents are tools owned and operated by a legal entity, and that legal entity committed crimes. Full stop.

         1. voganmother42 · 1790293291 · focus · HN ↗

            Those laws are not being applied. The legal entities are not being held accountable. What does this look like across a national boundary like the government of Australia vs OpenAI?

            1. bigyabai · 1790295193 · focus · HN ↗

               Probably similar to the privacy laws that are supposed to protect people from PRISM but doesn't. You need to have the willpower to tackle the US government and a trillion-dollar corppration.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.