‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Early rogue AI agent activity and attempts to hack found on urlquery.net

267 points · 313 comments · snikolaev

  1. Frieren · · focus · HN ↗
    "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.

    1. cubefox · · focus · HN ↗
      There absolutely are rogue AIs! The evidence is overwhelming. It's completely insane at this point to claim otherwise.

      > 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.

      1. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
        They are not rogue AIs. They are negligently handled tools.
        1. esafak · · focus · HN ↗
          I don't say this to absolve OpenAI, who do deserve to be punished and regulated, but I think you do not know the difference between an agent and a tool. If agentic AI is merely a tool so are human workers.
          1. sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
            ... no, human workers are people.
            1. esafak · · focus · HN ↗
              In their capacity as workers, they are also agents, capable of completing tasks autonomously.
              1. sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
                But AI agents are "merely a tool" and human workers are not, because they are people.
                1. esafak · · focus · HN ↗
                  No, they are not. This is what I keep trying to explain: an AI agent is not like a hammer.
                  1. jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
                    A person is also not like a hammer. Both persons and AIs have been known to mis-interpret instructions, the normal way to deal with that is either to terminate your relationship with the people (or to terminate the AIs and train up better ones). Hammers don't mis-interpret their instructions, they are wielded by a person who is in control.

                    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.

                    1. esafak · · focus · HN ↗
                      > A person is also not like a hammer.

                      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.

                  2. sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
                    You aren't explaining, you're asserting.

                    A tool is just anything one or more people can use to accomplish something they are trying to do.

                    1. cubefox · · focus · HN ↗
                      False. An animal is not "people". An alien is not "people". An AI agent is not "people" either. Neither of them is a tool.
                      1. sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
                        I would also not call an animal or an alien a tool. But an "AI agent" is a fancy term for a particular kind of very powerful computer program, it is not a being.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.