> Because the agents aren’t going to run airgapped in real life.

Exactly. This logic is precisely why aircraft engineering doesn't bother with component testing or envelope limitation during testing and just full-sends the first assembled airliner that comes off the line. The engines aren't going to run on the ground in real life, after all.

▲

paxys 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Why are you assuming that the other kinds of testing aren’t happening? Is there any source that says this was literally the first ever test with this model?

▲

ajross 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why are you assuming that the other kinds of testing aren’t happening?

Rather, I'm assuming that the "Is there protection in place for when the AI tries to backdoor github projects?" test was, if it was done at all, insufficient.

I mean, yes, I'm being glib and laughing at you a bit. But, dude... If your point is that isolation testing of AI is fundamentally impossible, then that's just silly. As pointed out upthread, an airgap would have (1) been trivial to implement and (2) extremely effective.

	▲	paxys 18 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Would an airgapped test have led to this outcome? What would you have learned about the model’s ability to social engineer and attack GitHub? Sure you can argue for better monitoring during the test, which should have happened, but if the first time the model sees the “real world” is after launch in the hands of customers then you are in for a disaster.
	▲	18 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]