I cringe whenver I see some variant of "they're not rogue agents" in an article title. Inevitably, the author doesn't define what "rogue agents" means, and then pivots to their own assessment of the situation.

It's like a strawman but worse--you're not even saying what claim you're attacking.

It's not that I want to argue "rogue agents" is the right term. I just want you to actually define your damn terms.

P.S. Since the disclaimer in the last paragraph will not prevent people from putting words in my mouth:

I think that OpenAI took really awful shortcuts, and deserves a lot of the blame, but in spite of that, the fact that the agents took the steps that they took was genuinely alarming, and seems really bad (is that "rogue"? Who knows? Who cares?). In particular, while OpenAI did a shit job securing their agents, you know who else does a shit job with security? 90% of everyone. So I'm not feeling good about "just git gud, and we won't have problems" as an answer.

▲

calgoo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I always think of all our collective movies and books, and how we always say that humans find a way to fight back against the super evil alien or monster because we are so resourceful. Then we train our AIs on this data and get upset when they encompass all the same traits that we have trained them on.

	▲	pixl97 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The problem is its very difficult training them to be generalized and not figure out concepts from what you've tried to remove. In all kinds of things they don't generalize well without counter examples. For example how do you prevent an AI from stealing unless you define and give examples of what it is. Also they are conceptual machines. They can stumble on the negation of a concept much in the same manner humans can. It may only exist for that prompt history, but that's more than enough to cause damage.