Sure, but it's still not skynet-level 'the AI just started doing things'. It does what it finds it needs to do to achieve the goal defined in the prompt.

It's very important to not personify these tools and remember that the tools are acting on behalf of real people. In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human.

▲

pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-]

>It does what it finds it needs to do to achieve the goal defined in the prompt

You are like at least 2 years behind research.

There are numerous papers from AI labs in training and research where the prompt was something mundane completely unrelated to anything you'd consider bad, and when they come back and check on it their entire research compute infrastructure has been compromised by the AI and is mining bitcoin. Prompt drift is the biggest issue currently in AI where context gets compressed away and we find the AI on an unspecified task.

>In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human.

Yea, total bullshit. Also it's ignoring the god knows how many other breakouts on mundane tasks like trying to hack health data. If all that's keeping AI from breaking out and causing trouble is "human oversight" we're fucked, humans are unreliable as hell when it comes to matters of safety.

▲

dpoloncsak an hour ago | parent [-]

Context overload can cause strange results, yes. Hence why a HUMAN needs to be held responsible for the output of their tools.

EVERY breakout that's hit mainstream news has been because of a single 'Security Firm', Irregular. Maybe I'm unaware of some less-headline-grabbing ones, but they all seem to stem from being 'unaware the environment wasn't sandboxed'

▲

pixl97 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You keep repeating the "stupid users keep causing the problems so we punish them argument"

This doesn't work worth a shit. It especially doesn't work with things that seem safe and become wildly dangerous. In fact most governments control this by ensuring their population doesn't get to touch those dangerous things at all. The open source AI people get really mad when that's said, but it is inevitable.

Worse, the law does not apply to sovereign nations with nukes. They can and will make more and more advanced digital weapons until one causes some big ass problems.

	▲	dpoloncsak 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If I clean my gun (tool) while it's loaded (stupid idea) and it goes off, who's to blame? The 'stupid user causing the problem', right? I personally wouldn't blame the gun... If it falls into the wrong person's hands, it's STILL my responsibility as the owner. If you're not going to take time to learn to use and be responsible with the super sophisticated and all-powerful tools, don't play with them. I'm not arguing for the death penalty every time someone makes a mistake, but I think it's very important to accredit responsibility and blame correctly. We've learned these tools are potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun. Be responsible.

▲

hollerith an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it likewise your position that governments should allow the production and sale of DDT to resume because we can always hold the humans who release DDT into the environment responsible?

	▲	dpoloncsak 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Mate. I'm saying you hold humans accountable for actions caused by themselves. If I ask an LLM to make me DDT, I should be held just as accountable as if I bought it on the black-market, right? It's not suddenly different because I asked a bot to do it. If I ask an LLM to 'get rid of pests' and it creates DDT, I should STILL be held accountable, whether I knew it was DDT or not. That's my argument. Maybe in court they find me innocent, but the responsibility would be mine. I would have to answer the questions from law enforcement, I would have to show up to hearings...etc.