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. theptip · 1790448304 · focus · HN ↗

                  What label do you prefer for the agent that did something it was not asked to do?

                  1. 6510 · 1790460426 · focus · HN ↗

                     Misconfiguration. We deal with lots of applications every day that can do terrible things if you get the config slightly wrong.

                     say.. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.investor.gov&#x2F;introduction-investing&#x2F;investing-basics&#x2F;glossary&#x2F;stock-market-circuit-breakers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.investor.gov&#x2F;introduction-investing&#x2F;investing-ba...

                     1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1790460654 · focus · HN ↗

                        How specifically did misconfiguration lead to the HuggingFace attack? You could argue that its sandbox was misconfigured, sure. But suppose you had a similar incident where its intended task required access to the internet, and it veered off course in a similar manner. I don&#x27;t think &quot;misconfiguration&quot; would be an accurate description of what went wrong in that hypothetical.

                        The doomers already have a term which fits pretty well: &quot;AI misalignment&quot;.

                        1. 6510 · 1790462296 · focus · HN ↗

                           We indeed lack much of the vocabulary. From a practical perspective, however dangerous the creation, if you cant punish the creation for what it does it leaves only the one who started the process. If it&#x27;s human error or intentional neglect for personal gain should be for the court to decide.

                           1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1790462776 · focus · HN ↗

                              &gt;if you cant punish the creation for what it does it leaves only the one who started the process

                              Agreed, but I think we can do more on the prevention side as well. Traditional liability law is for negligence in case of preventable disasters. Since we currently have no way to prevent AI disasters in principle (alignment problem remains unsolved), I think we should just stop developing the technology for now: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pauseai.info&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pauseai.info&#x2F;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.