‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

There are no "rogue" AI agents

396 points · 269 comments · zzzeek

  1. binarymax · · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly this. At worst, OpenAI knew about these behaviors and should be prosecuted under CFAA. At best, OpenAI is negligent and should be prosecuted for negligence.

    Luckily there are states and legal departments pursuing such action. So while OpenAI can deflect as much as it wants, that doesn't mean there aren't people who know better and will still do what is necessary to set precedent.

    1. solenoid0937 · · focus · HN ↗
      Angry people don't consider the second order effects of punishment.

      You realize how easy it is to just... not report this stuff, right? Be overly punitive and it will just end all proactive discovery and reporting which is net worse for AI safety.

      The only reason these companies scan for these issues is because they care about AI safety to some tiny degree. If fines become too punitive, they can and will just stop scanning for these incidents entirely.

      Models are becoming smarter and good at covering up their tracks, and so we will just end up with a huge blind spot for this kind of issue.

      1. lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
        around 3 months ago i said: "if we do not start the criminal prosecution of individuals there will become a culture of legal impunity coupled with an extreme concentration of wealth and control of intelligence"

        i now suspect that the plans of various employees at anthropic and openai to save the world from p(doom) may at some point intersect with the reality of the FBI raiding their offices.

        1. solenoid0937 · · focus · HN ↗
          If I am honest with an unpopular opinion: I think we need to go way further than the FBI. The labs need to be forcibly merged (to gain a decisive compute and algorithmic advantage over China) and managed under government oversight à la the Manhattan Project. All employees must be required to work out of a SCIF.

          The technology being built is far too powerful for any one company to control it - and it is a national security risk for the government to not be the sole holder of superintelligence.

          Lots of people at the labs believe this as well, but the Overton window has a long way to shift, and it may not shift far enough in time. I suspect AGI happens a year from now and superintelligence in two.

          1. hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
            The government, especially this government is the last thing I'd trust to manage a powerful AI.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.