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. 20k · 1790447376 · focus · HN ↗

      Yep. You have to ask - why did OpenAI allow these bots unrestricted access to government sites? Why is security being done in seemingly such a haphazard way?

      It isn't difficult to block certain kinds of network traffic, eg restrict the kinds of requests the bots are able to make. They also mention that the bots used developer only tools - why were they even installed on the machines that the bots were running on? Why aren't they reviewing network traffic, to make sure that incidents aren't occurring?

      In this case, userdata was transferred to third parties by the bots - why do they have the ability to pass data to a third party? It is not complex to prevent this

      This is literally the most basic kind of sandboxing and security, and the fact that OpenAI isn't doing it is clearly intentional. It is quite literally not believable that this hasn't been brought up internally as a problem

      >"We have yet to understand the extent of existing incidents, and future rogue AI scenarios could be catastrophic," Krueger said.

      This is why it smells like marketing, every time one of these incidents happens it reinforces the false notion that AI is sentient or acting on its own. Its intentional negligence by the AI companies to make the models seem more capable than they are to make line go up

      1. jsnell · 1790452271 · focus · HN ↗

         These were evaluations or training runs dealing with the ability to do web searches. The entire reason the bots were targeting this site is that it had some of the data they'd been tasked with finding. Access to the internet is not really optional for that, and providing internet access doesn't demonstrate neglicence.

         > This is why it smells like marketing

         It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing. If something is marketing, you don't engage in repeated coverups of the true extent. If something is good news, you don't release it on a Friday evening (in this case) or wait for 3rd parties to find and publicize the evidence (the past cases).

         1. jacquesm · 1790460641 · focus · HN ↗

            > It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing.

            Oh, absolutely it is. Arms manufacturers always go on about the efficiency of the weapons they create and make no mistake: OpenAI is first and foremost a weapons manufacturer, the rest is just a fig leaf. The fact that you aren't the audience for purchases like that makes no difference. "Look at this capability, and that's when we're not even trying." is pretty good marketing in some circles.

            1. jsnell · 1790462834 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes, famously tobacco companies wanted to advertise their products as addictive and deadly. That's why they funded and heavily publicized research to that effect.

               Climate change is just a scam by the fossil fuel industry to hype up their market cap. Look at the power of co2, and the damage it can do without even trying.

               Medicines being pulled during trials or after public availability for side effects are just Big Pharma making their products more desirable via scarcity.

               Boeing did really well out of the 737 max. Airlines were just lining up to buy an airplane that could give the passengers an experience they would remember for the rest of their life. That's why they absolutely made clear that it was their product that was dangerous, rather than blaming operator error.

               1. jacquesm · 1790465075 · focus · HN ↗

                  This comment makes zero sense. None of these are weapons manufacturers. AI is roughly on par with the atomic bomb and first use over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was definitely to send a message.

                  1. jsnell · 1790466893 · focus · HN ↗

                     Your analogy make zero sense. Atom bomb manufacturers do not market their products.

                     Big businesses really do not like to talk about their products being harmful or dangerous, and there is ample evidence to that. Danger only sells in artisanal quantities to niche audiences.

                     1. jacquesm · 1790468221 · focus · HN ↗

                        Atom bomb manufacturers/owners want the world to know they have them so as not to fuck with them. To quote one of my favorite movies: "Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.