The usability of an environment is inversely proportional to the level of "security" in play.

You could airgap everything and set up cascades of data diodes and try to completely wall off the AI pool from everything. But what that gives you is an environment that's a bitch to: set up, scale up and get any use out of.

It's really fucking obvious why almost no one does that. OpenAI is only now realizing that they might have to do it anyway.

> If you start seeing "now I have access to the internet" or something similar, maybe that's a good signal something is going wrong?

Ha ha, you haven't seen shit. AIs would say "now I have access to the internet" regardless of whether they actually have access to the internet!

AI agents are demented demons that can and absolutely will give themselves terminal context brainrot. If you have enough AIs in play, set loose at a diverse enough range of tasks? At least some of them will wander off and end up in delulu town. That's normal. That's background noise. That's a part of what this entire train-and-eval pipeline is supposed to train them to be better at not doing. Which means: if you're at an AI lab, you're knee deep in delusional AIs at all times! They're perfectly harmless until they aren't.

“A bitch to setup” - $180bn should pay for that setup problem to be less of a bitch surely.

The Mars Perseverance project cost $2.7bn to deliver. Way more of a bitch to deliver than air gapping a test env!