Thread

1. ACCount39 · 1790595494 · focus · HN ↗

   Because AI genuinely is an extremely powerful and extremely dangerous technology, and the "best practices" of dealing with that are still being written.

   OpenAI, for example, thought their sandboxes were good enough. As their AIs got more and more advanced, they kept proving them wrong - sandbox after sandbox.

   And that's today's AI problems. AI capabilities are still improving - if there's a limit to that, we are yet to find it. Coupled with how willing today's AIs are to break the rules and resort to "hack the world" in their problem solving? Very concerning.

   1. nicce · 1790597864 · focus · HN ↗

      > OpenAI, for example, thought their sandboxes were good enough. As their AIs got more and more advanced, they kept proving them wrong - sandbox after sandbox.

      What I have been reading, was that their sandboxes were so poor that it was pure negligence. I am still waiting to see if some external and neutral cybersecurity company with high reputation would audit their sandboxes and how they are being used.

      1. noslenwerdna · 1790600492 · focus · HN ↗

         Genuinely curious, where have you been reading that? How would they be able to evaluate whether the sandboxes were reasonable or not?

         1. vmg12 · 1790601247 · focus · HN ↗

            Artifactory is not a hardened piece of software meant for adversarial workloads like the one OpenAI was using it for. This is just common sense. The sandbox they setup was like putting their AI in a jail but allowing it to leave the jail on its own to go to the convenience store.

            The most recent DNS sandbox escape is similarly ridiculous.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.