Also regarding all the hacks, I always wonder why are they so boring, like agents posting to some wiki or using a bug in documentation to execute some code in a sandbox remote server, like if AI is so dangerous, how come they haven’t hacked into banks and stolen money or hacked into North Korean nuclear program and shut it down or any other major disruptive incident.
There is still a lot of work to do and the agents did some damage, but the blast radius was pretty small and they could have done much more damage if alignment didn't hold up as well.
Edit: Though I do want to be clear it does also show how a maligned model probably can do some serious damage.
If it was actually damage and disruptive shouldn’t police or the respective authority do an investigation on that? Because that’s usually what happens when a damage or harm is done by someone. That way we would actually be able to see a third party independent investigation on how dangerous the agents are. Right now we’re just blindly trusting whatever AI companies are saying. What is they aimed the agents on purpose to do those tasks to push their narrative and push for regulation
It's a perfectly valid opinion but not any kind of secret.
I literally wouldn't wipe my ass with it, and while I have no problem believing this of OpenAI and Anthropic (hell I've been assuming that all along) this is not a source anyone here should be giving the time of day.
If you want "local news" like the NYP writers it you might as well just read The National Inquirer.
As for the NYT, it has had an unjustified "AI hate" preaching article every single day of this year, including today. I consider this to be worse than tabloid talk.
In contrast, NYTimes makes up AI hate articles, trying to subvert the zeitgeist of the century. It also doesn't really care to spread information, considering its aggressive paywall.
AI aside, NYTimes is for elites, whereas NYPost is for the people. Guess who won the election.
The only substantiative comment to address the claim in the title, and it is from a nebulous "Tech industry insider". The other comments are by guys that run various "AI" Startups.
I don't buy a lot of the hype either but trying to present their claim as some revelation or news should have something to add.
The entire article is "Some tech people say the agents just had a bad sandbox and proper controls would've prevented this. Politicians are introducing bills to 'ban AI research '."
There saved you a click or a commanding your AI agent summarizing it.
I had a friend reach out in a slight panic after the Anthropic employee publically left, asking sole quite apocalyptic questions around AI given the sandbox “break out” and the Anthropic affiliated employee(s) saying theres something like > 10% chance AI kills all humans in the next decade.
This fear mongering needs to be exposed, so we can (hopefully) have more measured discussions around next steps. Stop all progress for regulatory capture? I’d rather not. Hold companies who commit crimes like hacking huggingface or Ruby dependencies liable (not to mention all the copyright issues)? Seems more measured to me. But i digress.
They're all racing for this, hoping to make money first, because once that erasure really sets in, there is no-one out there to buy products anymore, which means all those companies who replaced human labor by AI don't have anybody to sell their products to anymore.
And once that happens who is going to be needing all of these tokens?