> "air gapping AI can't (hypothetically) work because it will figure out a way to basically morse code across the airgap"

All things well-known for good two decades and written about by x-risk/LessWrong crowd, but to date continued to be dismissed as lunacy.

On one hand it's great to see it demonstrated in practice in concrete terms, on the other hand it's sad we have to basically make the mistakes ourselves, with live and close-to-dangerous systems, because we can't believe the obvious warnings.

▲

Avicebron 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You're likely not familiar with TEMPEST/EMSEC but this stuff was known about and discussed when designing air gaps going back to the 60s..

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla...

the x-risk/LessWrong crowd aren't adding anything to the conversation that seriously people haven't already considered.

	▲	TeMPOraL a minute ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't mean they first invented or described the methods, but that they've been consistently presenting a solid argument that these and other methods make airgapping and sandboxing AGI a dangerously flawed idea from the start. They are the serious people who considered this, and to date nobody listens.