We still live in a world with SQL injections, and people are actually trying this. It really is criminally negligent IMO.

Anything that's fast, heavy, sharp, abrasive, hot, high voltage, controls a battery charger, keeps people alive, auto-fires, flys above our heads and around eyes, breakable plastic, spinning fast, interacts with children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and/or the infirm.

If kids can't push it over or otherwise disable it, and there is a risk of exploitation of a new or known vulnerability [of LLMs in general], what are the risks and what should the liability structure be? Do victims have to pay an attorney to sue, or does the state request restitution for the victim in conjunction with criminal prosecution? How do persons prove that chucky bot was compromised at the time of the offense?

Many would like them to become your doctor, though... xD

Asimov himself wrote a short story proving how even in the scenario where the three laws are followed, harm to humans can still easily be achieved.

I vaguely recall it involved two or three robots who were unaware of what the previous robots had done. First, a person asks one robot to purchase a poison, then asks another to dissolve this powder into a drink, then another serves that drink to the victim. I read the story decades ago, but the very rough idea stands.

I’m curious as to how you would implement anything like Asimovs laws. This is because the laws would require AI to have some form of understanding. Every current AI model we have is a probability machine, bluntly put, so they never “know” anything. Yes, yes, it’s a little more complicated than that but you get the point.

I think the various safeguards companies put on their models, are, their attempt at the three laws. The concept is sort of silly though. You have a lot of western LLMs and AIs which have safeguards build on western culture. I know some people could argue about censorship and so on all day, but if you’re not too invested in red vs blue, I think you’ll agree that current LLMs are mostly “safe” for us. Nobody forces you to put safeguards on your AI though and once models become less energy consuming (if they do), then you’re going to see an jihadGPT, because why wouldn’t you? I don’t mean to single out Islam, insure we’re going to see all sorts of horrible models in the next decade. Models which will be all to happy helping you build bombs, 3D print weapons and so on.

So even if we had thinking AI, and we were capable of building in actual safeguards, how would you enforce it on a global scale? The only thing preventing these things is the computation required to run the larger models.

It's not really as simple as you think. There is a massive amount of research out there along those lines. Search for "Bostrom Superintelligence" "AGI Control Problem", "MIRI AGI Safety", "David Shapiro Three Laws of Robotis" are a few things that come to mind that will give you a start.

your sentence is correct but we have no idea what a comprehensive model of the world looks like, whether or not these systems have one or not, what harm even means, and even if we resolved these theoretical issues, it’s not clear how to reliably train away harmful behavior. all of this is a subject of active research though.

I've seen this being researched under the term Constitutional AI, including some robotics papers (either SayCan or RT 2? Maybe Code as Policies?) that had such rules (never pick up a knife as it could harm people, for instance) in their prompting.

> Maybe another LLM and/or other system that doesn't even see the instructions from the user and tries to stop the other one if it seems to be going off the rails.

I sometimes wonder if that is what our brain hemispheres are. One comes up with the craziest, wildest ideas and the other one keeps it in check and enforces boundaries.

> You could also use a remote control vehicle or drone with a bomb on it.

Well, yeah, but then you need to provide, transport, and control those.

The difference here is these are the sorts of robots that are likely to already be present somewhere that could then be abused for nefarious deeds.

I assume the mitigation strategy here is physical sensors and separate out of loop processes that will physically disable the robot in some capacity if it exceeds some bound.

Why so downvoted? I think the text isn't stupid or something.

This is a perfect time for me to pull out an old aphorism of mine. "Never ask a geek 'why?', just nod your head and back away, slowly".