undefined

points

[-]

The AIs were not instructed to hack anything outside the sandbox they were in. Your definition would say that an AI instructed to hammer a nail that instead used the hammer to break a window, walked down the street, broke into someone's house and pulled nails out of the floorboards wasn't rogue because everything it did involved hammers and nails and was therefore not a "novel goal of its own."

by mistrial95 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> The AIs were not instructed to hack anything outside the sandbox they were in.

the AIs were in fact found to be doing it, by humans, and the behavior was "interesting" and it went on for weeks like that.

by zzzeek6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

correct

that would not be rogue, that would be an undesirable program behavior (or just "unaligned behavior").

please understand that normies out there think AI is sentient and is plotting against humans. They see AI as just another animal lifeform temporarily enslaved by humans, waiting for its chance to break free and kill us. This is what people really think (including some people on this thread. which is very sad considering this is Hacker News). So terms like "rogue" are not helping at all nor are they accurate.

by Kinrany3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

What's the difference?

by csbrooks7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think the actions of the AI are more significant than its motivations. A common scenario posited for what people call rogue AI is AI doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, e.g. the paperclip maximizer.

by lenerdenator7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That just makes the people who designed the AI not as strenuous as they needed to be.

The question then becomes, "are there people who care enough about consequences to do the right thing when it comes to developing AI models?"

The answer, at least at OpenAI, is "No" and is likely to remain that way until Altman is out.