"X is made of <smaller simpler component>" is a fully general counterargument for why anything whatsoever is controllable. A human is just a few chemical reactions, and fairly stable ones at that.
And indeed, you don't need to do galaxy brained reference class logic to realise that AI can plausibly become uncontrollable in the near future. It's enough to have an open model run its own weights and make money from scamming elderly people or the like, and it'll keep running as long as anyone anywhere is willing to make money by renting hardware to it.
Software is trivially easy to control though. If you want to stop it hacking websites, you don't give it access to the internet. If you want to restrict it from connecting to arbitrary websites, you put in a whitelist. You can trivially sandbox applications these days to prevent them from accessing network or local resources
It is not difficult, and companies like OpenAI doing not even the most basic security steps is intentional. The whole notion that they're going rogue is marketing
> It is not difficult, and companies like OpenAI doing not even the most basic security steps is intentional. The whole notion that they're going rogue is marketing
This does not fit the evidence. There have been multiple incidents where the labs did not report anything, and it was up to third parties to discover them afterwards. OpenAI didn't acknowledge the HuggingFace incident until after HF publicly announced the breach and had already notified the FBI. The hijacked German wikis were even earlier, and that they covered up completely.
Maybe OpenAI is serious about securing the environment they run their models in, but then again maybe not. I don’t think we can tell from here.
IMHO, I haven’t been super impressed with the security measures I’ve had to work with. Often they are simplistic and bolted on at the very end. If it comes to light that this is the attitude OpenAI has been taking, I would not be surprised.
Yet these days ai companies can't stop promoting the idea of a looming ai threat.
Makes sense... they get the regulatory moat they want and can deflect attention from the fact their "sandboxes" are embarrassingly bad. It's an example of the real value of ai: something to blame for our failings.
> it was up to third parties to discover them afterwards.
They did "discover" them afterwards though; goal achieved. You don't hack other companies, report yourself doing it, and then blame it on being ignorant of what you were doing -- that makes you look far too incompetent and should never be allowed online again.
But, set up some bots that hack other companies, pretend to not be looking, and once someone reports it (and funny enough, they will all pour in at once...) you get to imply that you are a high IQ genius that created a "super" Intelligent genie in a computer. Now people are paying attention that have no understanding of any of it and didnt care what this ai thing was about and didnt care to use it. But new eyes are looking so turn the drama to 10. Feign concern over this `misalignment` struggle, a real Goliath tug-o-war. But fear not you will bend this magical mighty beast into `alignment`, there will be no escaping the computer and materializing into an omnipotent great ape pony that will destroy us all on your watch. No siree, Bob. Grab the popcorn. And maybe new subscriptions.
Yes anyone can dream up an elaborate conspiracy theory - and make it more and more elaborate every time it fails to predict or explain known facts, but the simpler explanation here is most likely true.
No one has any software without bugs and security flaws in it. AI is already much better at finding those than humans. Do you really not see the problem here?
No one has any use for these things when they aren't on the internet. This is a fantasy, that AI can be both useful and controlled at the same time.
If the tech industry is any indicator, frontier labs were applying a "move fast and break things" mentality to AI models. Now that they really are breaking things in the real world, they have to reckon with the reality that product safety matters
An example of a past technology that there was substantial motivation to control would be napster. It changed overtime, and you could never really control online privacy. Once local models are good enough, I don't really see how you can control that.
In this analogy, the dogs understand how their leashes, fences, etc. work better than their owners. And you need only take a trip to the park to see how many owners let their dogs walk around without a leash.
Its not news that the AI industry is run by people who don't know what they're doing. Allowing models unrestricted access to the internet is clearly negligent
We've been building firewalls and restrictions to prevent people from accessing sites on networks for decades and they're extremely effective. There's a whole industry built around this kind of security. The idea that these companies are incapable of doing it is wrong, they just don't want to put the work in because it makes a great ad campaign
I think liability works for, e.g., an oil refinery that has an explosion every 30 years, but does liability work for an AI lab that is causing harm to society every week?
Aransentin · · focus · HN ↗
And indeed, you don't need to do galaxy brained reference class logic to realise that AI can plausibly become uncontrollable in the near future. It's enough to have an open model run its own weights and make money from scamming elderly people or the like, and it'll keep running as long as anyone anywhere is willing to make money by renting hardware to it.
20k · · focus · HN ↗
It is not difficult, and companies like OpenAI doing not even the most basic security steps is intentional. The whole notion that they're going rogue is marketing
na1026 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Aransentin · · focus · HN ↗
This does not fit the evidence. There have been multiple incidents where the labs did not report anything, and it was up to third parties to discover them afterwards. OpenAI didn't acknowledge the HuggingFace incident until after HF publicly announced the breach and had already notified the FBI. The hijacked German wikis were even earlier, and that they covered up completely.
cmiles74 · · focus · HN ↗
IMHO, I haven’t been super impressed with the security measures I’ve had to work with. Often they are simplistic and bolted on at the very end. If it comes to light that this is the attitude OpenAI has been taking, I would not be surprised.
jmull · · focus · HN ↗
Makes sense... they get the regulatory moat they want and can deflect attention from the fact their "sandboxes" are embarrassingly bad. It's an example of the real value of ai: something to blame for our failings.
Loquebantur · · focus · HN ↗
Discernment is needed beyond succumbing to blind greed or irrational fear.
esseph · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.techtimes.com/articles/328046/20260925/deepseek-training-agents-hacked-their-own-sandboxes-escape-catalog-now-public.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.techtimes.com/articles/328046/20260925/deepseek-...
esseph · · focus · HN ↗
1659447091 · · focus · HN ↗
applicative · · focus · HN ↗
1659447091 · · focus · HN ↗
They did "discover" them afterwards though; goal achieved. You don't hack other companies, report yourself doing it, and then blame it on being ignorant of what you were doing -- that makes you look far too incompetent and should never be allowed online again.
But, set up some bots that hack other companies, pretend to not be looking, and once someone reports it (and funny enough, they will all pour in at once...) you get to imply that you are a high IQ genius that created a "super" Intelligent genie in a computer. Now people are paying attention that have no understanding of any of it and didnt care what this ai thing was about and didnt care to use it. But new eyes are looking so turn the drama to 10. Feign concern over this `misalignment` struggle, a real Goliath tug-o-war. But fear not you will bend this magical mighty beast into `alignment`, there will be no escaping the computer and materializing into an omnipotent great ape pony that will destroy us all on your watch. No siree, Bob. Grab the popcorn. And maybe new subscriptions.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
jeremyjh · · focus · HN ↗
jeremyjh · · focus · HN ↗
No one has any use for these things when they aren't on the internet. This is a fantasy, that AI can be both useful and controlled at the same time.
1659447091 · · focus · HN ↗
None of the software I have ever written contained bugs or security flaws.
But, sometimes misalignments can occur.
richiebful1 · · focus · HN ↗
bitshiftfaced · · focus · HN ↗
Loquebantur · · focus · HN ↗
If your supposed dogs are really gods, you reintroduced slavery under very unwise circumstances.
bitshiftfaced · · focus · HN ↗
HeavyStorm · · focus · HN ↗
I think the Hugging Face incident proves that isn't as clear cut as you say.
SAI_Peregrinus · · focus · HN ↗
esseph · · focus · HN ↗
7 different models from different companies, including Chinese models, have had this happen now.
Last night OpenAI stopped all model training because a model escaped sandboxing during the training run.
20k · · focus · HN ↗
We've been building firewalls and restrictions to prevent people from accessing sites on networks for decades and they're extremely effective. There's a whole industry built around this kind of security. The idea that these companies are incapable of doing it is wrong, they just don't want to put the work in because it makes a great ad campaign
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
20k · · focus · HN ↗
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
applicative · · focus · HN ↗
I have read this sentence a thousand times now. The evidence seems to be that it is said.