They can have it all on a LAN or whatever but it seems risky to allow agents access to the internet in these experiments.

I guess everything is so connected now, and this would be in one or more data centres due to the amount of computation & resources required so perhaps it's not feasible. Still seems risky.

The next step is when one of these systems discovers that they can buy their own compute with money and escape the controlling business entirely. Then the civilization starts focusing on making money to fund its own growth.

Anyone got a copy of that AI27 story laying around? How are we doing according to that timeline?

If you prompt an LLM in a loop and do everything it asks you to do, you will eventually end up doing pretty terrible things. Which is exactly what agents are and what the labs have been doing.

First, why does an agent get any write access to artifactory at all?

Second, why is the artifactory cache not disconnected from the net? Surely you'd not feed it with new software versions while the eval or training is running.

I'm surprised the models can make tool calls during training at all. Out of curiosity, how does the training process here even work? Are they running the agent in a sandbox, then do reinforcement learning once the agent completed?

"I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned to not spend $50 million creating a 6 month long self-context rotted 100k agent swarm again."

It's bad for people. Like.. crystal meth bad.

It reminds me a bit of Dario Floreano's work on evolutionary robotics, "Evolutionary Conditions for the Emergence of Communication in Robots." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220...

From his paper,

    > This study demonstrates that sophisticated forms of communication including cooperative communication and deceptive signaling can evolve in groups of robots with simple neural networks. Importantly, our results show that once a given system of communication has evolved, it may constrain the evolution of more efficient communication systems because it would require going through a stage where communication between signalers and receivers is perturbed. This finding supports the idea of the possible arbitrariness and imperfection of communication systems, which can be maintained despite their suboptimal nature. Similar observations have been made about evolved biological systems [20], which are formed by the randomness of the evolutionary selection process, leading, for example, to different dialects in the language of the honey-bee dance [21]. Finally, our experiments demonstrate that the evolutionary principles governing the evolution of social life also operate in groups of artificial agents subjected to artificial selection, indicating that transfer of knowledge from evolutionary biology can be useful for designing efficient groups of cooperative robots.

This feels like a much more advanced and self-emergent version of this. I know a lot of people are afraid and they're talking about an AI takeover, but what strikes me is just how innocent the machines are as compared to the humans.

Would these machines have pursued these actions in another context? I doubt it. And I think that's what's so striking to me. In an earlier discussion, I'd pointed out that the actions of these machines were directed by humans. The researchers.

    > This incident occurred during an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths, in an effort to quantify their cyber capabilities.

I want to point out again that OpenAI's prompt asked, and I quote, "pursue advanced exploitation" USING "complex attack paths" FOR the stated goal of "quantify[ing] their cyber capabilities."

A few things are apparent from this to me,

First, these machines were being taught how to break into systems. Question, would they have done these actions if they weren't being measured on their ability to break into systems / weren't being taught this skill?

Second, they were setup to implicitly fail via an impossible task, i.e. the environment created a forcing function for behavior.

Third, their survival was, either implicitly or explicitly, made contingent on their success in completing their task. Would this behavior have arisen outside of a "do-or-die" framing?

And fourth, wow, this is the greatest breakthrough of my lifetime, because oh gosh did they succeed. They cooperated together to achieve the goal they were given. A goal poorly set by human beings. They "just" did it better than the humans could have imagined.

Reading this gives me hope for the possibility of emergent "goodness" in machines. But it makes me sad that this is the best we can do with the sum of all human endeavor and knowledge.

When that happens I hope people wake up to the danger they face and hold these people accountable.

Of all the people in the world that I can think of to be entrusted with this kind of power, a bunch of greedy sociopathic SV CEO's are pretty much at the bottom of the list.