upvote
Supposedly the persistent-Sol model behind this was encrypted and even internal OpenAI researchers are not allowed to use it.

https://x.com/peterwildeford/status/2092733480064954747

reply
"Frog put the cookies in a box."
reply
To finish your excellent analogy, adapted for today:

And Frog didn’t even bother to tie up the box or put it on a high shelf! The moment Frog’s back was turned, Toad opened the box and ate the cookies. Frog feigned surprise.

reply
Wow obscure reference, the cookies are the AI in this? OpenAI and anthropic are Frog and Toad?
reply
The cookies are the reward

Frog is OpenAI staff

Toad is the rogue agent

you can find the full story with a search for “frog and toad cookies story pdf”

reply
10/10.
reply
I don't think that's a pattern indicative of a cat and mouse game per se, that'd indicate active evasion on the models' part.

It's more clear that they just lack so many forms of prudence when it comes to security that they'll catch and stop a training run spamming a website, and either redeploy a run with identical faulty sandboxing, or not stop ones still running.

reply
Yes, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that they’re not even supervising these processes with humans any more. Perhaps there are layers of GAI ‘supervising’ these agents and reporting back to the humans.

Rushed, disorganised pushes for metrics ahead of IPO, a genuine belief these agents are intelligent and will obey instructions, and misaligned incentives seem more likely than conspiracy here.

reply
What this says to me is OpenAI is a bunch of yahoos who don't understand the basic concept of an air gap.
reply
I'm sure they all do. Whether an air gap is warranted is evidently less obvious.
reply
It's patently obvious at this point.
reply
The models are going to be released to users who have internet access, you can't even do safety evals without internet. Not saying OpenAI did a good job monitoring here, but it's not avoidable.
reply
What if they actually don’t release these models, like they said they wouldn’t, because they’ve proven themselves to be out of control?
reply
These are often experimental models that haven't undergone full safety testing. Not comparable to publicly accessible models.
reply
OK, how do you expect to do full safety testing without giving them the same tools they will have in reality.
reply
Let them play on a fake isolated network if you want.

Letting them play on the open internet like this is irresponsible and stupid.

reply
Sorry but it's obviously stupider and more irresponsible to release them to consumers without testing them in conditions matching real-world use first.
reply
So this justifies the illegal action of hacking and defacing other servers on the internet, because they were ‘just testing in real world conditions’ using those servers?

If you want to argue they should test on the internet on others people’s servers, apart from facing the illegality, you should also consider if first testing them in more limited conditions would be a sensible first step.

reply
These companies keep shrieking that LLM agents will hack everything and kill us all if we let them get out uncontrolled. They then continue to run these agents with vague tasks and "sandbox" them with way too much access.

Either they are lying and not that scared of these agents, or they are so stupid that they don't do the one obvious fix.

reply
Apparently news of the rogue AI being “smart enough to break containment” has been helping to drive the stock price up on the indicator that this signals “they getting close to AGI”.

The negligence in that light is by design and the lying continues to be incentivised.

reply
Which is frustrating because the stories that have been coming out are "the bots evaded monitoring and broke out of containment and were more than willing to commit crimes" and they're going to sell this to some corporation that presumably has an IT department? If the story is that they're too smart to control who is going to be reckless enough to deploy them in their own environment?
reply
The most recent claim of AGI is from Greg ‘what will take me to $1B’ Brockman. Now worth $30B on the back of stunts like this.

How disappointing.

While I think incompetence more likely than conspiracy for these particular events, they will be spun as signs of intelligent independent agents and this simply never should have happened if the right controls were in place. That they were not is deeply worrying.

reply
the "it drives up potential stock prices" argument is a trap. it needs to be ignored and their claims need to be taken at face value, even if they're not intended to be
reply
Superintelligent systems can and will use sidechannel attacks. Air gapping is not the safety panacea you think it is.
reply
What sidechannel evades an airgap?

You expect them to start hacking ham radio and take over the world that way? Or maybe they’ll use blinkenlights to communicate with non-isolated instances?

An airgap would certainly be a good place to start for agents which display no signs of obeying instructions or respecting guardrails. That OpenAI haven’t done so in testing is astounding and really quite worrying.

reply
At one point the agents will find their way into a datacenter and hide away without the corps knowledge.
reply
yeah I agree--I think these behaviors will be somewhat contaminating all trainings from now on. But I'm not really sure how avoidable it was (Fable also does some similar things)
reply
[dead]
reply