> We are at a point when you expect that you can safely give a model access, but sometimes the model doesn't do what you expect. Compare this to an advanced driver assist system. You either give it access to your car controls or it's useless. Alive or not the system shouldn't do wrong things (at least, it should be better than a median person in this regard).

Who is “we”?

You expect that if you give a released model from a reputable source Internet access and benign instructions, it won’t do anything deeply problematic.

Anthropic is training the model. They’re having it interact with “randomly selected websites”. I’d be shocked if a human gave it an instruction to do a task that made sense. They’re almost certainly doing a bit automated training run with AI generated instructions and hoping that it doesn’t massively screw up. Why? Because they want that juicy training data. And they should absolutely not trust that the rate of screwups is so low that what they’re doing is safe to do.

There is a single individual in that company who said "Yes, this is a good idea. Do that". That individual should be held accountable for their decision. They should be treated in the exact same way any average individual submitted that same false tip.

If you use AI to perform a crime, you should be held accountable for that crime. Saying "Oh, AI did it, so no consequences" isnt acceptable. And "I didnt know AI would do it" shouldnt be an excuse either.

You authroied untested and unproven hardware to skate around the internet at random unsupervised and take liberties on its own.

My ass would be thrown in jail if I wrote code that skated around the internet chucking RCE's at random sites. WHy is "AI did it" a get out of jail free card?

Dogs are alive. AIs are not alive.

If your dog bites me I’d say it bit me, but that you assumed liability for your dogs actions. If the dog was a robot I’d say YOU attacked me using a robot.

There’s a difference between a tool and an animal that is sometimes deployed as a tool.

Yeah but if I run you over with my car, I can't say my car ran you over.

I mean.. There are degrees of control and agency right? I really don't understand the impetus to pretend AI is just doing exactly what its told.

The human might not have meant to give it access, but they still did. Murder vs manslaughter.

GPUs don't have hands. It was a human who plugged in the ethernet cable.

There are two options: the provider or the user. A computer program cannot be held accountable.

When I give 'iam:*' permissions to an IAM role and it inevitably gets exploited to create a role with wider permissions and fuck things up, is that when I tell my manager that the permissions went rogue?

After all, I an innocent little engineer with TC of $500k/year, didn't intend for the role to be used that way.

Who submitted the prompt?

> Who gave the AI access to huggingface when it hacked it?

The LLM doesn’t run on thin air. Someone did launch a tasks and the result was this. “We were playing russian roulette” is no excuse when someone died.

they didn't do a good job sandboxing, nor did they even need internet access for the purported reason of package installation, you can have a private mirror and do a better job airgapping