1038
Explaining “rogue” AIs (europe.pub)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Source

TranscriptExplain it to me like I’m 80

Mom: What’s with these AIs escaping and hacking people? That sounds scary.

Me: You park your car at the top of a hill. You leave a note on the dashboard that says “please be good” and then you pull the parking brake. The car careens down the hill, smashes everything up, and you put out a press release saying “My car ignored my instructions! It hallucinated! It went rogue!” Your insurance company not only believes you, but invests a hundred million dollars in your company.

Mom: Jesus Fucking Christ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It is very simple, the more advanced the AI, the better it sells.

You hold all evidence of potential "breaches of containment".

Telling everyone that your AI is so advanced that it can breach containment without prompting, puts the spotlight on your AI model.

You can claim that it did fantastic feats to break out, all with pre planned evidence.

The public and regulatory bodies have been in complete AI psychosis mode ever since ChatGPT was released, and only care about how advanced the model is, not how shit your containment was, nor that if true, how reckless it is to keep the model active.

Note that I am not pointing to any one single AI company and saying that they are faking these breaches, I have no evidence of that, I am saying that I don't trust their reporting accuracy, they don't have a good track record of being honest.

I am also angry at how society just seems to eat it all up and ask for more despite the vile aftertaste.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    There is no “containment” though. Like, these companies purposefully set the bots loose on the internet. They’re not trying to contain anything. They just use that word cause it sounds like they’re doing something. Any sort of containment would defeat the entire purpose of what they’re trying to sell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago

    Which is part of my point, my other point is that they claim that the models are breaking out and attacking other systems on their own, which is ridiculous.

    There has to be some motivation for the models to do this, either prompted or programmed. In both cases the company behind it is responsible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago

    I think the AI companies know they have bought the US government and are above the law, all this hacking stuff is promotional content.

    Silicon Valley delenda est. I moved away from there not quite a year ago and I'm still realizing how fucking insane that place and the tech people working there are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    I feel it has more to do with the companies already vested in AI found this was an opportune moment to "pull the ladder up" behind them. They know that the barrier to entry is continually dropping, and their models are incredibly inefficient. If they set up all sorts of oversight, requirements, and restrictions on who can do what, they prevent upstarts with less capital from being able to enter the market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent