On Friday, OpenAI published a new site devoted to “misalignment reports” and the breadth of the incidents is alarming.
110 comments
They want “regulation” but we already have it. Hacking is illegal. Start locking up those responsible for this mess and I assure you they’ll “have a handle on it” quite quickly.
But also, what was the material damage to HuggingFace? AFAICS, it rapidly increased their profile to the point that Jensen claims he paid too much for HF, because he bought right after the hack.
If I run over your mailbox maybe we can come to an agreement where you don't sue me, but if I was driving recklessly I've still committed a crime that you cant absolve me from.
It should be the same re: losing control of your agents.
there's probably better/more likely to succeed avenues to pursue rather than the cfaa
Repeatedly doing something that results in a specific outcome, even if that outcome is not explicitly specified or requested as the preferred outcome, can still be evidence of intent.
I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt the feds could win a CFAA conviction on the Hugging Face fact pattern, even if they wanted to charge it.
CFAA has specific intent requirements, and unlike some laws, negligence does not suffice. The agents can not have legally cognizable intent and it’s unlikely there’s anyone at OpenAI who intended for the hacking to happen (if there was, the case is easy).
Existing laws don’t contemplate AI agents that have independent goals. We need new ones, the existing laws are not remotely sufficient.
AI does not have goals. These are statistical models of language patterns that people shape into different tools, and that people direct to do things. If I fire up an OpenAI prompt, and enter no input, it is not going to do anything.
No, someone at OpenAI is running the model with some sort of prompt and allowing it to just follow the numbers to do whatever it wants, up to and including breach of government computer systems.
Whether that means anything to the CFAA prosecution, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but the use of language treating these agents like they're something other than tools at the direction of humans is bad.
It's more like me firing off a rifle into the air on the Fourth of July with no regard for where the bullet lands. I knew that it must come down somewhere, but fired anyways.
I don't really see the harm in charging someone under the CFAA. Let's see if a jury agrees with the charge or not. If not, write new laws.
- It's just an Independent Security Researcher.
- So that's it? You will do no action?
- Correct
Once companies start harming each other in undesirable ways, as opposed to proverbially toilet-papering each others’ lawns, meaningful prosecution will happen in earnest.
So, there is a regulatory framework for "safe-ai" that shields these companies from liability. This way, they can sell "safe-ai" to enterprises and if shit-hits-the-fan at the enterprise, sorry, this is certified "safe-ai" so, your bad. Shift blame. From an enterprise buyer's perspective they can say, hey, I bought "safe-ai" and so dont fire me when it "rm -rf"s the production database. Still, it beats me why they are painting their product in a negative light, and scaring their own enterprise customers. After this sort of marketing, any enterprise buyer would be scared to go anywhere near it
1. Wanting a regulatory moat around their products as you said
2. Trying to keep the """AGI""" hype alive. Evil robot hackers is a plausible Al consequence of AGI
In the cases that I have seen covered, the AI just paper clip maximized its way to success. It has no morality / larger motivational structure. It just kept token predicting its way to wards whatever goal it was tasked with.
Model versions which gave up were discarded, leaving the ones that get to success on long horizon tasks.
Just because its a computer program, doesn't mean they can actually make it not go rogue.
Sure you can add more telemetry, have better observation, but there is no fundamental barrier that can be implemented that ensures an AI won't go rogue.
Seems only fair that tech workers get to have their life ruined with 2-3 year prison stints since they feel fine destroying society.
Any AG that starts prosecuting these people will easily win any political race they decide to enter. The environment is too good; voters, rightfully I'll add, despise big tech's leaders and workers.
You are being too kind.
In the early says of AI, papers were published showing that any sufficiently intelligent system tasked with a goal will treat its operating environment as a resource constraint to be optimized or bypassed [0] [1] [2]. You don't need to be a expert in AI to know once you have the resources of 1000's of agents and gigawatts of power we are probably getting something that is "sufficiently intelligent", at least in the sense if there are existing vulnerabilities brute force will find them.
Yet while the their marketing people were shouting the capabilities of these AI's from the roof tops, they hired the lowest bidder to implement their infrastructure. It looks like aforementioned papers where dismissed as "interesting, but theoretical". There is no way Google's SRE's in particular would have not noticed their AI's breakout (Alibaba's did), but the AI labs were given a long leash to "move fast an break things", which in practice meant bypassing all Google's SRE controlled infrastructure.
And break things they did, in exactly the way those papers predicted. It reminds me of DoD insisting the early GPS satellites were launched without relativity adjustments switched on, despite relativity being proven to high precision in the labs. Only after predicted 11km drift per day was observed did they decide their might be something to the newfangled relativity theory. For some definition of newfangled - relativity had been around, and tested to within an inch of its life for 72 years at that point.
[0] https://nickbostrom.com/superintelligentwill.pdf
How so? Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and Meta all used the very same contractor, which used no safe system prompts, and no sandbox. How should Google detect such escapes? They only see the model API calls, but no system logs.
Alibaba, and the other Chinese did they own testing, not some incompetent contractor. They would see escapes in their logs. The escapes went on for months. I, as tester, closely observe my models to press Esc immediately, once they start misbehaving or get off the right path. With 1000 concurrent models that would be hard of course, but I would still observe them closely.
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- The Verge · 0 points · 2 days ago
- Can you forget how you feel about Meta?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 4 days ago
- Can John Ternus find Apple’s next big thing?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- Hacker News · 73 points · 8 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 11 days ago