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. theptip · 1790447319 · focus · HN ↗

      Curious, why do you find it so objectionable to state that OpenAI has out-of-control agents?

      1. gleenn · 1790447451 · focus · HN ↗

         Because it furthers the idea of a rogue agent and places responsibility and blame where it belongs, on the people running the company.

         1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1790447593 · focus · HN ↗

            These ideas aren't mutually exclusive. You can blame a person for creating a rogue agent.

            1. dgellow · 1790448225 · focus · HN ↗

               There was no rogue agent. That’s the whole point

               1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1790448647 · focus · HN ↗

                  Person: "AI, please make me paperclips."

                  AI: "OK, I've now converted the entire planet into paperclips."

                  Alien observer #1: "Wow, that was a rogue AI!"

                  Alien observer #2: "False. We need to place the blame where it belongs, on the person who requested the paperclips."

                  Ultimately this type of terminology dispute has a tendency to miss the point.

                  1. windexh8er · 1790456091 · focus · HN ↗

                     It does, indeed. Because OAI is not just a singular person, as in your scenario. No single person has access to controlling agents at the scale OAI has. Let's not conflate Frontier providers with "Person".

                     1. jacquesm · 1790460871 · focus · HN ↗

                        That legal fiction works both ways.

                        1. windexh8er · 1790461134 · focus · HN ↗

                           [dead]

                           1. jacquesm · 1790461252 · focus · HN ↗

                              You could have asked for that more gracefully.

                              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Corporate_personhood" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Corporate_personhood

                              1. windexh8er · 1790461414 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Check the mirror. And, with that link I think you&#x27;ve missed the point entirely, a tad too literal of an interpretation. But thanks for trying.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.