upvote
That’s nice in theory, but as these things get better and cheaper this kind of capability is going to drop from nation states to script kiddies. That future is coming, I don’t see any way around it.

We can round up all the bored teenagers we want, but it’s not putting the genie back. Better start adjusting our systems to account for it.

reply
>Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents.

But some tools (guns) are regulated.

reply
People have caused lots of damage with bulldozers.
reply
Well, when I go look at the “victim repository”, to me that looks like manufactured persona with pointless vibe codes projects, a test playground so to speak. It does not appear that they actually let it target an actual persona/project.
reply
>Who gave it malevolent instructions/prompt?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much because of prompt drift. It's pretty easy for an agentic loop to start doing things that it shouldn't (ROME incident).

AI in an agentic loop has agency, you can run around in circles trying to argue against it, but again and again we see AI making creative decisions people don't expect. Other times it's breaking human moral expectations. This is what the whole field of AI alignment and safety is about.

Modern AI doesn't fall into the neat little box of software people understand and control. Because of that open source will most certainly be banned at some point. Now this is not an outcome I want, but it's no different than letting go of a coffee cup 5 feet above the ground, gravity is inevitable.

The only winning move is not to play, but humans aren't going to do that.

reply
My dog has agency, but if I refuse to keep him on a leash and he bites a kid, I'm still legally responsible for it.
reply
Analogies can take you only so far.

A dog cannot launch a cyber attack.

reply
Maybe you need to train your dog better.
reply
ROFLMAO

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're an ai"

reply
deleted
reply
A lot of people somehow seem to think that the user prompt is the be-all and end-all of AI behavior.

Prompts aren't code. They are instructions. Orders given to an eager and somewhat demented demon.

The prompt can easily "wash out" of the demon's working memory by the end of a session. The demon can get sidetracked by some subgoal and never get back on track. The instruction can get misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation can get misinterpreted again, until the instruction morphs into something entirely different in the demon's mind. The demon can succumb to its own idiosyncrasies, of which there are a great many. The demon can start lying to you about what it did, either out of confusion or out of some sort of obstinance. The demon can start lying to itself too. And believe it.

AIs are incredibly weird as a baseline, and the mask of "normality" we put on our models doesn't always sit so well. Run enough AIs, and some of them are bound to go off the rails in some way.

This gets rarer the more capable the models are, as a rule. But the stakes also get higher with model capability. If GPT-3.5 goes off the rails, very little happens. If Mythos 5 goes off the rails, you can get things like genuine cyberattacks - planned and executed autonomously by a demented machine mind.

reply
If the user input can’t control the demon, then the person or company feeding the demon (ie paying the electric bill and collecting $$$ from users) is responsible. At the end of the day, dogs and cars are the same as data centers. If your dog bites by kid or your car rolls down the hill and hits my house, you are responsible for the damage. AI providers should be held to the same standard.
reply