Thread

OpenAI bots meddled with multiple US Government agency sites

132 points · 196 comments · Betelbuddy

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.
    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.
    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://apnews.com/article/meta-ai-hacking-anthropic-irregular-openai-0e8061437da6779be962b24ac134a514" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/meta-ai-hacking-anthropic-irregul...
    You can find many more examples by searching major media outlets for words like rogue AI.
    qarl · 1790447627 · focus · HN ↗
    None of these stories are implying that the people running the bots are not ultimately responsible. That's the conspiracy theory part.
    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.
    rfgplk · 1790447748 · focus · HN ↗
    Most of those agents are actually going rogue though. They decide, "hey, we could try breaking into these government servers today, what could go wrong?" They weren't prompted or instructed to do this.
    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.
    aesthesia · 1790463194 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you and I have different definitions of the word "basic."
    atmosx · 1790449057 · focus · HN ↗
    And that's exactly what the op was alluding two: the double standards.
    mjr00 · 1790447423 · focus · HN ↗
    > Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible.
    Do we know that? I don't think we do. When a person's computer (or smart TV, or smart fridge, etc...) is compromised and used as part of a botnet, they don't get criminally charged.
    qarl · 1790447701 · focus · HN ↗
    You'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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.