undefined

points

[-]

> A tool designed and trained to autonomously exploit security vulnerabilities doing "exploit gym" autonomously exploited security vulnerabilities.

That is very misleading. The agents did not solve the benchmark in the intended way. They instead figured out to cooperate with each other (which was not intended) and they stole the solutions to the challenge (rather than solving the challenge) and they then tried to cover their traces because they believed the grader was causal and would detect that they cheated. The "tool" was absolutely not "designed" to do this. This was all completely unintended. To call this behavior a "tool" is absurd.

> Yes you are playing language games to make it sound as if the company that spend millions on the above was not responsible.

You hallucinated me making claims about responsibility.

by FridgeSeal39 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

This is very misleading. Person B didn’t “shoot” person A, they instead figured out that intersecting A’s spatial position with a metallic mass at higher than normal velocities would solve the challenge and of getting “A” to stop being in the way on the footpath.

I too, can play linguistic games! It doesn’t matter that someone didn’t secure their third upstairs window, or you borrowed a key from their neighbour, you effectively, still, broke into their house.

by watwut8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The benchmark has unsolvable tasks in it, in the hope agents will stumble on new solutions.

Yes, it is a tool.

by PavleMiha2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So this tool seems very powerful and difficult to control and steer. Agents not doing cybersecurity related tasks have also gone on to hack various companies, people and countries, which they weren't supposed to do. This has now happened to pretty much every company developing frontier llms, so it seems to be a fundamental issue with these tools, and it's an issue that worries a lot of people as these tools get more capable.