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. plorg · 1790447419 · focus · HN ↗

         Okay. "OpenAI keeps telling its bots to do things they know are illegal and then acting like they're just little guys who can't be held responsible for their obvious negligence".

         1. qarl · 1790447876 · focus · HN ↗

            > acting like they're just little guys who can't be held responsible

            Again - I don't see any evidence that this is the case - outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.

            Or - maybe I'm wrong - do you have any sort of quote like "we aren't responsible"?

            1. plorg · 1790448745 · focus · HN ↗

               I'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's just "OpenAI didn't explicitly tell them to do straightforwardly illegal things" then you'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" then I'm not really interested in what you'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'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]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.