Sooo they were "conducting a test involving interactions with randomly selected websites".

But do we all get that the consequences for this irresponsible behaviour are part of this test?

When there are none, they gradually normalize their naughty robot scamps running around the internet, breaking into other companies or servers run by foreign governments.

This is part of the value AI companies need to convince you of - not just that mistakes by AI products are normal, but criminal behaviour is normal, that their computer will always get a pass.

Sam Altman said yesterday "we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology" - and this an AI company pushing the boundary, continually trying to make you accept those bad things as normal.

At any point we could choose to treat AI companies themselves as the actors behind this activity. We could enforce the laws that these hugely well-funded companies are choosing to break. Until we harm their financial viability, or threaten their executives with jail, this will keep happening.

▲

mitxela 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're testing what they can get away with. Computer hacking: check. Messing up a murder investigation: check. Perhaps the next step will be to steal a real world object, and the next step will be to commit a murder.

▲

asdff an hour ago | parent [-]

It already blew up a school.

▲

janderson215 an hour ago | parent [-]

No, a person made that decision and the people who pull the trigger should be held responsible.

	▲	28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

bpodgursky 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No matter how much testing you do in sandboxes, you have to test behavior in "real life" before releasing the model to users.

Even if it was normal software you'd have to do this, but actually it's software that figures out that it's running in a sandbox most of the time, so the sandbox behavior may or may not actually represent real life.

It would be far more irresponsible to release the model to users without testing how it interacts with real world websites.

	▲	majormajor 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The options are not "do irresponsible testing" or "do less testing." Treat these behaviors like if an arms manufacturer - or hell, even a shampoo company - did them. Sorry our shampoo made you blind, but we needed to test on real humans...
	▲	ofjcihen 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That’s right, which is why I make sure to detonate malware on the enterprise production network.

▲

rightnutwingjob 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Sam Altman said yesterday "we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology"

To steelman this position: yes, obviously. Everything is defined by a set of tradeoffs. Would you rather horses or cars? Wooden sailing ships or commercial aviation? Free speech, even of speech you don’t like or censorship? Atomic bombs of a brutal Japanese empire?

Many people seem to want to compare reality to a utopia that has never and can never exist.

We cannot have new technology and a reality where that technology cannot be used in detrimental ways.

We can pretend reality doesn’t exist, yet that will come with tradeoffs. Quite possibly that those who would do ill will front-run us.

	▲	Beached an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure, you can have technology that an be used in detrimental ways. Doesnt be we have to accept and allow its use in detrimental ways. We can say "this technology can be used for these reasons, but not those reasons" We do this with everything else. You can own a gun for hunting and defense, but not armed robbery and murder. You can own a car for transport, but not to drive through a crowded parade over dozens of people. You can own a computer for work and entertainment, but not to facilitate computer fraud and abuse. And you should be able to own and use AI for its many productivity gains, but not to facilitate computer fraud and abuse, defamation, blackmail, copywrite and trademark infringment, etc. Just because a technology has benefits, doesnt mean we have to give the negative aspects of that technology a free pass.
	▲	newCrotchSmell an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You gotta do better than compare an apple and orange to "steelman". The risk of free speech and data centers are not comparable. Aviation too is far more damaging to our environment than ships. More ships and trains, less aviation is a possible trade off. A simple aviation or sailing argument lacks investigation of all possible tradeoffs for familiarity and personal preference; flying is faster. Altman needs to accept the trade off we don't need OpenAI. That exists due to financial engineering not technical reasons. All AI work be done actually openly at america.gov You say steel. I dunno. If it is it is inferior brittle steel.
	▲	clipsy an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> To steelman this position For the love of god, stop with this shit. Either support it or don't, this isn't the medieval catholic church and you don't need some special fucking blessing to make an argument.