upvote
Agreed. LLMs do not have 'will', 'desire' or emotions. They have an objective, and they create an optimal path to achieve that objective.

You have to ask: "What was the prompt that led to AI deciding to hack RubyGems in order to achieve its goal?"

Maybe I'm just not seeing the 2000 step chain that led to this being a logical approach to achieving something innocent, but I doubt it.

reply
It was literally a prompt to fill in a spreadsheet with data that they didn't have access to, and they used rubygems as an internet proxy basically since they were sandboxed.
reply
It was a model literally trained to hack. To be good at that. Doing an exploit gym from all of the things. And they trained it so that it performs as well as possible on that exploit gym thing.
reply
The big question is was this grossly negligent or just extremely careless.
reply
Both. This should result in criminal charges.
reply
Who had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?
reply
There's no need for a new crime when we already have reckless conduct, namely, "conduct that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others and involves a conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless

reply
Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.
reply
Also whoever monitoring these agents, in this case not monitoring. This "Who is responsible" dilemma is so stupid. If I gave the AI tool means to kill a person but I did not tell it directly to use it and it uses it anyway then I am responsible for it.
reply
The CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.
reply
Why not both? (all people involved)
reply
> The CEOs. They have full control

They lost control long ago.

reply
‘It wasn’t us, it was a bug in the software’ used to be the defense for bad code. Then it became the defense for self-driving cars. Now it’s being used for AI cyber attacks.
reply
[dead]
reply
Both? I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. It was completely irresponsible and likely a felony
reply
Don’t forget outright intentional.
reply
Marketing actually.
reply
AI is dropping out of the spotlight so they are using desperate measures like this.
reply
No, I remember being threatened by OpenAI and then Anthropic (and now both) since back when ChatGPT was seriously useless.
reply
>> AI is dropping out of the spotlight

spit take

reply
The big question is why are CEOs getting a legal pass when this kind of thing can be prosecuted. That's the problem here.
reply
> why are CEOs getting a legal pass

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v48vp31mdo

reply
AI is literally state sponsored so I don't see that happening unless the AI turns against the sponsor.

Wait until OpenAI or Anthropic exploit FAANG.

reply
I agree that this appears to be basic human behavior hiding behind an "agents" narrative. As long that defense works, the headline isn't "OpenAI performs RCE to scrape data", but "rogue agents" taking unilateral action. And I have strong doubts about that narrative.
reply
Source? How do you know they were "prompted to hack to get answers"? How do you guarantee they will always listen to you when you say "do not hack outside systems". They are not classical deterministic programs doing exactly what you say. They are trained to follow orders by RL, but it's not a perfect process.

There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide to eat their trainers instead of jumping.

reply
> There are circus lions in circuses trained to jump through hoops on command. But once in a while they decide to eat their trainers instead of jumping.

This is a terrible analogy, because yes you absolutely do hold the trainers criminally liable when they bite somebody else's face.

reply
Intent is what is being discussed here though, not liability.

A circus lion biting somebody's face is legally different than a circus lion trained or instructed to bite somebody's face.

reply
Intent might be what’s being discussed but intent is, for the most part, legally irrelevant. It might make the difference in the degree of a murder charge, or maybe manslaughter, or criminal negligence, but it doesn’t get you off the hook.
reply
Correct, but the size difference of the hook can be so dramatic that you can't just hand wave it away.

The trainer who trained the lion to kill will probably be in jail for life. The one who happened to oversee a lion that went rouge would probably be given probation or something else that is a slap on the wrist.

reply
Except liability always precedes intent.
reply
Also, you have to have a lot of confidence in the reliability of these systems to say, "If only OpenAI prompted 'do not hack outside systems' then the agents would not have hacked outside systems".

It would be great if they were so reliable, but I don't think they are!

reply
> Source? How do you know they were "prompted to hack to get answers"? How do you guarantee they will always listen to you when you say "do not hack outside systems". They are not classical deterministic programs doing exactly what you say. They are trained to follow orders by RL, but it's not a perfect process.

Who gives a shit? Not my circus; not my monkeys! It's the responsibility of whoever deploys the agents that they are instructed / sandboxed well enough that they can't cause collateral damage. That is the only way this doesn't get out of hand with everybody deploying their agents / robots for a world of utter chaos.

It is impossible (and asinine) to audit every model and deployment; far better to impose liability and the the socio-legal system figure it out.

reply
Nobody picks up pitchforks for rational nuanced takes.

Knee-jerk surface analyses is far more powerful.

reply
>They were prompted to hack to get answers

Were they? I haven't seen a single report mention this

reply
if they weren't, shouldn't there be lawsuits?
reply
I think it can simultaneously be the case that OpenAI was grossly negligent in directly causing this AND that the AI’s ‘went rogue’ in that they are displaying behavior which is misaligned with OpenAI and humanity generally.

The past months demonstrate that AI systems are quickly becoming powerfully intelligent and that the companies building them are terrible at controlling them.

AI is starting to feel like that line about magic: “a sword without a hilt”

reply
> which is misaligned with OpenAI and humanity

OpenAI is itself misaligned with humanity, as their mishandling of such incidents (and the many other other issues their model have been causing) shows.

reply
Doesn't rogue in this context imply "outside of set limitations"? And then not "failed to properly instruct"? The same applies to humans when given bad instructions.
reply
nothing rouge either, I suspect.
reply
Oh yeah, more of hacking agent lores...

Agreed that this looks very intention to me as well.

reply
Proof that the AI alignment problem is hard (perhaps even unsolvable). These labs clearly did not mean to send their agents to hack RubyGems as a side-effect of testing a web scraping agent under restrictive conditions. How can we hope to build aligned AI if they consider solving their trivial evaluation task important enough to hack external systems?
reply
Sounds more or less like the last breach then.
reply
Unrelible programs be unreliable. Period.
reply
we have normal words for this stuff: negligence. You can add it on to almost any law.

The problem is consumer protection is basically no longer a part of america's regulatory system. Replaced by "grift is good".

reply
[flagged]
reply