Thread

1. gizajob · 1790444203 · focus · HN ↗

   Getting bored of these framings where the superintelligent sentient beings running freely inside OpenAI are doing things that the company has no control over. The headline should be:

   OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.

   The bots are acting neither properly nor improperly, they’re acting as they’re being allowed or coordinated to act.

   1. qarl · 1790446159 · focus · HN ↗

      > OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.

      But that leaves out the most important information.

      EDIT: Oh, I guess the agent part isn't important then? Seems to me like that's the only thing anyone is talking about.

      1. gizajob · 1790446345 · focus · HN ↗

         If the headline was “Russian company meddled with multiple US government agency sites” I don’t think them pinning the blame on bots would make much difference.

         1. unglaublich · 1790446562 · focus · HN ↗

            Unless Russia it would put Russia in a strong position to regulate bots in the wealthiest parts of the world.
         2. qarl · 1790446781 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't see much traction for the "pinning the blame on bots" theory outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.

            Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible. Like it's been forever.

            1. mossTechnician · 1790447397 · focus · HN ↗

               Blaming bots as "rogue agents" is simply what the media regularly does, often echoing corporate verbiage. Here's an example from the AP.

               <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;apnews.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;meta-ai-hacking-anthropic-irregular-openai-0e8061437da6779be962b24ac134a514" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;apnews.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;meta-ai-hacking-anthropic-irregul...

               You can find many more examples by searching major media outlets for words like rogue AI.

               1. qarl · 1790447627 · focus · HN ↗

                  None of these stories are implying that the people running the bots are not ultimately responsible. That&#x27;s the conspiracy theory part.

                  1. mossTechnician · 1791086164 · focus · HN ↗

                     The behavior of the executives in question paint that image wholistically. They act as if they are part of the investigation, actively trying to figure out who is responsible, because doing so connotes quite loudly that they believe they are not.
               2. rfgplk · 1790447748 · focus · HN ↗

                  Most of those agents are actually going rogue though. They decide, &quot;hey, we could try breaking into these government servers today, what could go wrong?&quot; They weren&#x27;t prompted or instructed to do this.

                  1. dgellow · 1790448648 · focus · HN ↗

                     An agent, ie a while loop prompting an llm continuously and processing tool calls, ended up melding with the US government. The harness is not sentient, it’s just a stupid deterministic script. The LLM compact its context over time, meaning it will eventually degenerate into something removed from the original prompt.

                     There is nothing going rogue here. The system is designed to go catastrophically wrong after a long enough time. Even worse: if the model was Astra it is known to be able to manipulate its CoT to cover its traces (as mentioned in its system card). And OpenAI acknowledge they had no observability during the HF incident.

                     It’s the most basic corporate software issue possible.

                     1. aesthesia · 1790463194 · focus · HN ↗

                        I think you and I have different definitions of the word &quot;basic.&quot;
               3. atmosx · 1790449057 · focus · HN ↗

                  And that&#x27;s exactly what the op was alluding two: the double standards.
            2. mjr00 · 1790447423 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible.

               Do we know that? I don&#x27;t think we do. When a person&#x27;s computer (or smart TV, or smart fridge, etc...) is compromised and used as part of a botnet, they don&#x27;t get criminally charged.

               1. qarl · 1790447701 · focus · HN ↗

                  You&#x27;re right - it is a complex situation based on intent and negligence - requiring a decision by a judge. As it has been since forever.

                  None of which is changed by replacing a buzz saw with an agent.

      2. plorg · 1790447419 · focus · HN ↗

         Okay. &quot;OpenAI keeps telling its bots to do things they know are illegal and then acting like they&#x27;re just little guys who can&#x27;t be held responsible for their obvious negligence&quot;.

         1. qarl · 1790447876 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; acting like they&#x27;re just little guys who can&#x27;t be held responsible

            Again - I don&#x27;t see any evidence that this is the case - outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.

            Or - maybe I&#x27;m wrong - do you have any sort of quote like &quot;we aren&#x27;t responsible&quot;?

            1. plorg · 1790448745 · focus · HN ↗

               I&#x27;m not replying to your post below complaining that no one else accepts your framing. What is the important information you think is missing? If it&#x27;s just &quot;OpenAI didn&#x27;t explicitly tell them to do straightforwardly illegal things&quot; then you&#x27;re just quibbling that no one accepts the interpretation that is most beneficial to OpenAI while ignoring both its incentives and history of this kind of behavior&quot; then I&#x27;m not really interested in what you&#x27;re selling.

               1. qarl · 1790449073 · focus · HN ↗

                  I notice you ignored the question I asked you - which I will assume means: no - you do not have a quote or other direct information indicating that anyone is attempting to shirk responsibility.

                  I have no interest in trying to guess these people&#x27;s secret internal motivations. I just want to talk about direct evidence. I see none. Please enlighten me if it exists.

                  1. enigmoid · 1790455126 · focus · HN ↗

                     It’s unlikely that OpenAI will ever directly state that they are trying to shirk responsibility for the consequences of their tests.

                     However, OpenAI (and other frontier labs) did outsource at least some of their most-disastrously-lawbreaking tests to a third party with a now dubious track record [1]. I’m not sure we will get a more explicit admission of their desire to shirk responsibility than this. But I am convinced.

                     [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.effort.news&#x2F;irregular" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.effort.news&#x2F;irregular

                     1. qarl · 1790455762 · focus · HN ↗

                        OK - I&#x27;ll bite. How does this show that OpenAI is trying to shift responsibility for the hacking onto its agents?

                        I do not see the connection. I&#x27;m afraid you&#x27;ll need to spell it out.

                        1. [deleted] · 1790470666 · focus · HN ↗

                           [deleted]

         2. [deleted] · 1790448605 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.