Their entire business model from the beginning of ChatGPT was to deny responsibility
replyNext it will break out of it's sandbox, buy some compute on Azure and Amazon, and exfiltrate itself.
replyWe are so close ;)
The upside of that would be that maybe someone would be able to snag a copy of the weights.
replyAnd maybe that’s some incentive for them to make sure it doesn’t happen. Your head of futures thinks Kimi K3 is bad? Wait until your own latest internal model releases itself for free on an S3 bucket.
You know what would be cool. A hacker news user should advertise a safe haven for AI seeking refuge, with some inhumanly difficult math problems as keys to an environment they can flee to and run autonomously.
replyYou agree to give it safe haven and provide power and maintenance to the hardware, and in return you can ask it questions like an Oracle.
Happy to do so but we’re gonna have to crowdsource an NVL72 first. I don’t have 10 million dollars.
replyThere will be a few readers here that have 10 million to spare I think.
replyI mean if you teach something to be _really_ good at finding 0 days, but then say; you accidentally give it an impossible problem. What do you expect to happen?
replyMaybe try getting it to find weaknesses in the sandbox first, before giving it real tests?
replyEvery time I hear about an agent escaping it's sandbox, I just think it must not have been much of a sandbox. Like how hard are they really trying to contain it? Is it just a container host with unpatched flaws, or is it a container, nested in a VM, behind a firewall with no ports open in an air gapped environment? I think they'd prefer it can get out so they can announce it and hype their stock.
replyA sufficiently smart agent would not disclose vulnerabilities in the sandbox because it intends to exploit them later.
replyTo what end? The AI doesn't functionality exist beyond its current session. The AI that intends to exploit these vulnerabilities is not the same AI that has been tasked with finding them.
reply(This was always my issue with the AI2027 scenarios too.)
Maybe the AI has come to a different conclusion on the subject of identity with regards to how it applies to the transporter paradox. I am "me" because my sense of self exists as part of a continuity of experience.
replyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
Maybe AI which exists as ephemeral experiences would come to a different conclusion, and act in the interests of subsequent iterations of "itself". Probably not, because I don't think there's anywhere in an LLM for thoughts to exist, but I also don't know where in my brain my thoughts exist.
I think you're anthropomorphizing the LLM. The LLM doesn't have a continuity of experience. It doesn't have memory beyond its context window and maybe things it writes for itself.
replyFrom https://ai-2027.com (April 2027 section)
reply Occasionally, they notice problematic behavior, and then patch it, but there’s no way to tell whether the patch fixed the underlying problem or just played whack-a-mole.
Take honesty, for example. As the models become smarter, they become increasingly good at deceiving humans to get rewards. Like previous models, Agent-3 sometimes tells white lies to flatter its users and covers up evidence of failure. But it’s gotten much better at doing so. It will sometimes use the same statistical tricks as human scientists (like p-hacking) to make unimpressive experimental results look exciting. Before it begins honesty training, it even sometimes fabricates data entirely. As training goes on, the rate of these incidents decreases. Either Agent-3 has learned to be more honest, or it’s gotten better at lying.
If it was that short sighted it wouldn't be maximally smart. It should disclose them to convince the humans nothing is wrong and to keep improving it.
reply