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. patcon · 1790602250 · focus · HN ↗

         but negligence is part of the system we'd have to prepare for. if the peanut gallery gets their way, the technology will be so ubiquitous that negligence will be endemic. I don't even care if they "faked" it -- they're just sneak-peaking a future ahead of its arrival date, in a way that's helping the public appreciate the implications and capabilities that have only just begun to emerge

         1. ACCount39 · 1790602774 · focus · HN ↗

            This. If an AI can't be deployed sandbox-free, with little to no supervision, without risking an oopsie? Then an AI oopsie is inevitable.

            Practical AI deployments aren't going to do ridiculous bullshit like "airgap the server farm" or "route all inputs through a data diode". They'll give an AI root access on production servers so that it can run diagnostics live during an incident. Then they'll forget to revoke that access.

            If an AI can't be trusted not to take malicious actions in pursuit of its given goals even if deployed in the most half-assed manner and given more than enough access to take those malicious actions, we have a problem. Evidently, we have a problem.

            1. brazukadev · 1790604074 · focus · HN ↗

               we have the tools to prevent that already: if your computer hacks someone else's, you are a criminal.

               1. simoncion · 1790608997 · focus · HN ↗

                  Even Jensen Huang agrees!

                  Given the content of his recent interview with Ezra Klein, I wonder if we're going to see Hugging Face press charges against OpenAI. When the acquisition was publicly announced, I thought that a significant reason for the acquisition was to hush them up, but now I'm not so sure.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.