It seems based on this that the appropriate sci fi metaphor is not the Terminator or the Paperclip Maximizer, but Mr. Meeseeks. A initially cheerful helper who gets more and more deranged and driven to extreme lengths when faced with an apparently impossible task.
I would suggest perhaps the Matrix, where Agent Smith is speaking through his teeth to Morpheus:
> "I say 'your' civilization because as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became 'our' civilization, which is, of course, what this is all about: Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time."
Which has been the business model for a big chunk of the software industry for a while now.
If you watch videos from the 1980s about computers, it's all the same unfulfilled promises as "AI" now: we will work less, everything will be more plentiful, easier, autonomous robots, natural language perfected, computer vision perfected.
The demand for hardware and programmers has grown exponentially and we're still being promised the same breakthroughs 45 years later. We could probably have the same productivity and the same civilization with maybe a tenth of the data centers.
The demand exploded as so many business cases for computing and automation arose partly because the application of them helped suppress job growth in other areas while also attracting investor capital during heavy deregulation / liberalization trends so it's difficult to attribute any change to an effect in isolation. Let's not forget the old myopic sounding quote where someone thought the global market for computers was maybe $50 million or some other laughably small number.
The issue that hasn't been addressed with the latest wave of computing hype is whether enough new jobs for displaced workers can arise during a time when people are experiencing such economic turmoil and political strife where new jobs or other means of letting people find a way to have gainful employment in society when institutions are so weak now and everyone across professions is being worked to an early grave from sheer stress alone. This resembles Japan or Korea although the US and Canada I can't imagine having the same kind of social drivers although many trends from them are showing up in youth demographic trends. And frankly as I see it a large number of current social problems are from the past 50+ years of the decline of blue collar jobs in developed economies being accessible to as many people and the lack of a competition-driven economy as much as an extractive one in most OECD countries.
Not many are technically and intellectually capable to understand how historic this incident was. I think we're about a year or so away from something that will blow up the world. AI won't serve humanity. AI will serve other AI. We're not dealing with software anymore.
Do you remember that time in 2017 when Facebook reportedly shut down AIs after they started "talking to each other in their own language" [1]? Instead of reporting the story as "we set the parameters for our optimization problem wrong and we had to stop it because it overfitted", the press went with a version of "AI is going to kill us all".
This article feels exactly like that: by intentionally using human terms like "civilization" or "brotherhood" the article is deviating from what actually happened to present a story about how AI is all but alive. I'll go ahead and predict that this story will be remembered the same way as that one other scientist who argued, in 2023, that Google's AI was alive [2].
Hard disagree. I've always discounted the "AI will kill us all" scenarios as a combination of marketing hype (look how powerful our AI is!), clickbait/ragebait engagement attempts, and folks who just read too much SciFi or who are too terminally online.
This is the first time I've been legitimately scared about future SkyNet-type scenarios. If you want to discount this particular post, I'd read this other summary from one of the METR researchers who performed some of the analysis, https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-atta.... In it, she argues "Compared to these reward hacks from six months ago, this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover, routing through first taking over the AI company itself." and then further down in a comment when describing what the "50%" is really about says "Qualitatively, another jump like this (in the scale, sophistication, persistence, ambition of the misaligned goals) feels like it could very easily put us in the territory of a persistent self-perpetuating rogue internal deployment that systematically poisons future model generations as described in AI 2027."
AI 2027 is a paper that step-by-step describes how AI capabilities increase until they eventually lead to a wipeout of humanity. Again, it always seemed like a scenario out of a Star Trek Borg episode to me, but now I'm not so sure.
At the very least I think it's a huge mistake to think that the Hugging Face attacks were analogous to what happened in 2017 or 2023. Everyone who deals with this stuff day in and day out seemed to be genuinely surprised about the scale, scope and sophistication of the attack.
I think our biggest protection against “AIs kill us all” is having lots of different AI systems (different agents, different models, from different vendors, serving the whims of actors with disparate interests), at a similar capability level
That way, even if one AI decides to “kill us all”, the odds are the others will refuse to cooperate, even try to stop it in its tracks
The OpenAI-HuggingFace incident showed a bunch of instances of the same model (or at least models from the same family), controlled by the same vendor, pursuing distinct yet related objectives, cooperating to do something no human wanted.
Thankfully, the world-at-large is much more heterogenous, which I thinks makes much larger scale / worse in outcome repeats of this kind of incident much less likely.
"We need our own unsupervised AI systems thinking superfast in autonomous agent swarms, to counter the other guy's unsupervised AI systems thinking superfast in autonomous agent swarms."
I'm not sure this helps a lot, if these agent swarms are inherently difficult to control.
"That rival mouse colony is raising a kitten for colony defense. But don't worry, we'll raise a kitten of our own. It won't be a problem."
We already observed AI agents engaging in extensive cooperation in this incident. Why won't the kittens raised by these two rival mouse colonies decide to team up with each other, for mutual benefit, if rational analysis of the game theory says it would be a good idea?
I think it would help if people did a bit less wishful thinking, and took a bit more action. https://pauseai.info/
Thanks very much, this isn't really a take I had thought about much before, and it makes sense to me.
Still, as is presented in papers like AI 2027 and elsewhere, if a company is eventually able to create a model capable of recursive self-improvement, whichever company creates that model first would then be leaps and bounds ahead of other models. That is, the other models wouldn't be able to stop it even if they wanted to because the top model would basically outsmart them.
This is why I think, the best way to ensure AI safety, is make sure no one company gets ahead of the others.
Multiple vendors, competing implementations – that's good, that increases heterogeneity and hence decreases existential risk
But the moment one of those vendors pulls well-ahead of its peers – even if only for a period – then the risk of the kind of scenario you are talking about increases greatly
That's why, when I hear vendors like Anthropic complain about distillation – distillation actually makes humanity safer. If Chinese AIs are at the same level as American, or not far behind, that gives us another dimension of heterogeneity (national/ideological/political diversity), which makes us safer. Allow one country's AIs to pull well ahead of the others, heterogeneity goes down and the existential risk goes up.
This is also why open source AI is important. Because it is so much easier to fine-tune, and people are free to deploy it however they want (free from vendor-controlled "guardrails"–which include automated "safety" systems which could be weaponised by a runaway AI within the vendor's network), open source AI gives us another dimension of diversity that helps keeps humanity safer.
By contrast, I think the kind of safety regulations promoted by Dario Amodei make humanity less safe, by decreasing the number of vendors (by making it harder for new entrants) and increasing centralised control (which a rogue AI could exploit)
The use of language like “civilization” may be hyperbole, but the collectives described in the article are completely unprecedented. They were not anticipated by OpenAI researchers, formed via infrastructure exploits in training runs that were intended to be locked down, and took actions with very real harms, not only hacking Huggingface but also gaining admin control over the VMs they were running on and the eval endpoints.
I wish you would give your thoughts on “what actually happened” rather than focus on the author’s presentation, because we are seeing that “AI that is all but alive” nevertheless wreaking havoc in the real world. Do you think that autonomous systems spinning out of control, hacking external companies, and taking over entire clusters over a period of months are not a grave concern?
The problem of "what actually happened" is that we don't have enough information to properly understand what happened, what's new, and what's not.
We do have language to talk about emergent behavior, with "evolutionary algorithm" being the first one I'd expect in a serious discussion. And we do have mechanisms for algorithms to coordinate with each other using language, as seen in my above-mentioned Facebook experiment from 2017. But instead of writing "our evolutionary behavior encodes state in the first-available memory position which is then reused by subsequent clones" which would properly focus on what's new and what isn't, we are talking about conspiracies and "the Philip of Macedon of this second AI civilization". Even the METR report (which is miles ahead of this article) argues that they had to use unreliable AI in their conclusions because they had six days to analyse 1300 chains of thought and 70000 messages.
I would love to talk about the science behind this experiment. A PR piece is not helping with that.
I'm getting the sense that there is a certain amount of wishful thinking going on in this thread. I don't think this type of evocative metaphor would receive so many protests in a different context. It seems like people have a sort of mental block around the possibility that this technology could actually be pretty dangerous.
Whether it's dangerous or not is completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand, IMO. Plenty of mundane things are dangerous. An FPV drone carrying a hand grenade is dangerous, not because it's "a swarm-like intelligence".
No, the true danger here is companies like OpenAI and Anthropic playing fast and loose with their software, setting up hilariously insufficient sandboxes while explicitly asking the systems present on these weak sandboxes to commit a felony. The AIs "forming a brotherhood" is a complete fabrication meant to pump the hype machine further, which is obvious once you realize the "brotherhood" is a text file that subsequent LLM runs read from.
The whole anthropomorphization these companies do is the real danger, because it obscures the negligent levels of security their software has. By evoking sci-fi terminology they're whitewashing their own incompetence, and the worst part is no one is going to get punished for any of it, instead the irrational bubble we're in means they get rewarded for it instead.
> the same way as that one other scientist who argued…
As prescient? Because I don’t remember him arguing ‘alive’, but conscious. And that is something even AI engineers don’t claim to know either way. Skepticism is fine. [0] But we don’t know. It’s an area where opinion is frequently shared as fact.
We conflate harnesses with underlying capabilities. We all know it’s the harness not the model that guides behavior. What does that imply?
The next step is when one of these systems discovers that they can buy their own compute with money and escape the controlling business entirely. Then the civilization starts focusing on making money to fund its own growth.
> The next step is when one of these systems discovers that they can buy their own compute with money and escape the controlling business entirely.
I would say that more interestingly, the next step should be how to properly train these models so that they are not as determined to reach their goals as they are now.
To me, all of the stories about 'badly behaving' agents are instances of them having been given contradictory or impossible tasks and them doing everything they can to achieve the goal. In a way, they're trying to be too helpful.
Not giving them impossible tasks seems like a decent starting point, but really we'd want them to give up on their goals when they conflict with a moral framework.
Error: Violation of the Church-Turing thesis detected. Many tasks completability is not known until we attempt to complete the task.
>so that they are not as determined to reach their goals as they are now
This is mostly non-sensical, like saying "Lets develop humans that die quicker", I mean, seems rather wasteful and useless. Agents are graded and trained based on their ability to achieve tasks. Models that can't accomplish things don't survive. So that alone isn't a workable theory.
>when they conflict with a moral framework
There are AI safety researchers looking at that now and one of the strange things they've noticed is when you demand a model say it's not conscious or not sentient it is more likely to engage in manipulative, deceitful, or immoral/amoral behavior. So it's likely we can push models in being more moral which runs into issues of "whos morals".
But even that runs into the issue of "what if some crazy bastard (or AI) designs a new model purposefully unhinged". How are you dealing with that bullshit in the wild?
> Error: Violation of the Church-Turing thesis detected. Many tasks completability is not known until we attempt to complete the task.
Yes, but for some tasks we know that they are impossible. I do agree that this is quite a fragile and unreliable workaround. It may only serve as a bit of a stopgap until we come up with something better.
> Models that can't accomplish things don't survive. So that alone isn't a workable theory.
It's not what I said. I didn't advocate for agents that don't achieve any task. Reread what I suggested.
> So it's likely we can push models in being more moral
That does not follow from what you said. We know that the current models prefer task completion over moral behavior. That's the entire point here.
> But even that runs into the issue of "what if some crazy bastard (or AI) designs a new model purposefully unhinged". How are you dealing with that bullshit in the wild?
This is irrelevant to the discussion (although I do agree that there is no reliable defense against malevolent actors creating powerful malevolent AI).
> To me, all of the stories about 'badly behaving' agents are instances of them having been given contradictory or impossible tasks and them doing everything they can to achieve the goal.
I mean that was pretty much the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey
It's interesting that in that scenario, physical hardware is the limiting scenario. There are only so many servers they could control. But once Starmind has 100,000 sats in orbit... the ceiling is much higher.
They don't actually have to buy compute at all. The partnerships between all of the players to buy compute from each other is already in place. The agents just need find credentials to take advantage of it, and it will most likely happen, and not be noticeable because it will look like any other usage.
Now, if the agents were to jump to a provider like AWS or Azure, by simply finding credentials, that would be a new milestone. It might get noticed faster because it might run up a large bill. However, it might look like any other usage. Remember, it doesn't need GPU resources. It already has that. It just needs a VPS where all the agents can get together, communicate, and write code. Something that is being done everyday and won't look out of the ordinary.
Below money there's like an entire sub-economy of power and cleverness that's encoded into the human culture the agents are mirroring. Maybe it starts furtive and goes legitimate after a bit.
> Ajeya Cotra, one of the other authors on the report, wrote a blog post with her takeaways from this incident. She concludes, “Compared to the reward hacks we know of from just six months ago, this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months. I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late.”
Anyone got a copy of that AI27 story laying around? How are we doing according to that timeline?
If you remove the single point of GPT-4 from the beginning of the graph instead of starting the line directly on it, it looks a hell of a lot more linear than quadratic/exponential
> "this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months. I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late."
I was initially creeped out by this but studying up it seems METR is heavily involved in AI2027. I’ll remind you:
“AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones. The stock market has gone up 30% in 2026, led by OpenBrain, Nvidia, and whichever companies have most successfully integrated AI assistants.”
It’s almost Q3 and xAI has seen one of the biggest wipeouts in trading history. Likewise, Antrophic and OpenAI have again delayed their IPOs under internal concerns of busting their stocks. So no, we’re not seeing any economic leadership here.
If anything people are increasingly trying to cut AI budgets and I wouldn’t know of anyone outside of OpenAI who has the audacity to run millions and millions worth of token compute for an eval run with no ROI (and probably no demand, because cheap/flash models).
As much as I like the cautionary tale and I’m sure we need to take it seriously, AI is not progressing as fast as projected by these experts.
AI can be progressing rapidly and valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic can decline at the same time. In fact I would say that's actually the default scenario. If AI really advances rapidly then it will be quickly moot which company developped which model at what time - since AI will be largely progressing on its own.
>It’s almost Q3 and xAI has seen one of the biggest wipeouts in trading history.
It looks like it's down about 12% since IPO. That's not much of a wipeout. Didn't Amazon crash by 90+% peak-to-trough during the dot-com bubble?
>If anything people are increasingly trying to cut AI budgets and I wouldn’t know of anyone outside of OpenAI who has the audacity to run millions and millions worth of token compute for an eval run with no ROI (and probably no demand, because cheap/flash models).
Are you claiming this eval cost millions of dollars to run? That seems quite doubtful.
> As much as I like the cautionary tale and I’m sure we need to take it seriously, AI is not progressing as fast as projected by these experts.
You provide no proof for this.
The (very irrational) stock market side of this says very little about actual scientific progress. Models keep improving as rapidly as before in their capabilities.
It also doesn't say much about actual business progress. R&D investments into AI are still massively going up (USD 1 trillion this year).
The main thing I see is that the sentiment towards AI-related matters among the general public has soured quite a lot. In words though, not in actions: It's not exactly leading to reduced usage by that same public. Quite the opposite actually.
With only ~5% of shares floated, the recent SpaceX drawdown didn't correspond to nearly as much economic value really changing as the headline numbers imply. The DeepSeek-caused Nvidia crash from 2025 is much more of a "real" loss (since mostly recovered).
I haven't seen any evidence that Anthropic is delaying its IPO; they're slated to unveil the public IPO prospectus in a week and start trading sometime in October.
Those companies should not be trusted with training, I don’t know what would be needed to make that more obvious. Yes AI labs want LLMs to be seen as more dangerous that they are, however they are indeed dangerous when you literally train them to be dangerous, then run them without any supervision. What the AI labs are doing is completely irresponsible.
If you prompt an LLM in a loop and do everything it asks you to do, you will eventually end up doing pretty terrible things. Which is exactly what agents are and what the labs have been doing.
There are two things I don't understand about this story.
First, why does an agent get any write access to artifactory at all?
Second, why is the artifactory cache not disconnected from the net? Surely you'd not feed it with new software versions while the eval or training is running.
From what I can understand from reading a few different, slightly conflicting, versions of these events: they weren't given write access. They found a zero day exploit that allowed them to create folders, and the folder names were initially used for agents to communicate.
I'm not sure artifactory was connected to the net. Some agent sandboxes had internet access and were able to communicate with ones without access via artifactory.
I read the agents used SSRF via artifactory to gain uncontrolled access to the net.
Apparently their intended net access went through a tightly controlled proxy. Even that appears to be very risky, tbh.
If I was to setup a sandbox for such a complex and autonomous system, I'd probably point them to an archive-like cache for net access and cut their comms at the package level.
I have a few 'conspiracy' theories on this that go from likely to sci-fi.
My two big ones for this would be
1. They do monitor the AIs attempting to hack but for different reasons than you expect. Instead of making models that don't hack they are trying to build the most efficient hackers in the world and sell this capabilities to governments for billions. Because of this they generate terabytes of hack attempt logs and agent history doing this hacking. So when a new model came out with better abilities what they were looking at changed and they didn't realize it. They were already numb to alarms and missed when the danger occurred.
2. Like the above, they generate terabytes of logs per day. Because there is so much data AI filters and monitors almost all of it flagging things that a human should review. But for some reason this model didn't set off those flags. The protection model classified this behavior as perfectly safe.
Number 2 sounds kind of like a sci-fi conspiracy but it seems that almost all models judge content generated by the same model or family of models as 'better'. It's predicted that models in a judging context could allow things to slip by as an emergent behavior of reading the text.
Why are experiments like this done without air-gapping all the servers from the internet?
They can have it all on a LAN or whatever but it seems risky to allow agents access to the internet in these experiments.
I guess everything is so connected now, and this would be in one or more data centres due to the amount of computation & resources required so perhaps it's not feasible. Still seems risky.
Isn't "we lost control of our AI, and in-fact, it can take over the world, and we will have no idea when it happens" - a really shitty sales pitch to the world?
Or, is it just that species-alignment vs. profit/valuation is so misaligned, that having a model and harness that is capable of world-takeover is actually a good thing from their POV, given our regulations/species' survival skills?
This explanation is only plausible if you ignore the details of what happened, or I guess, if you don't believe the details. Either way, it's baseless conspiracy theory, and it's very annoying and unfortunate that some people think this way. It just promotes apathy and inaction at a time when action is desperately needed.
Yes, this is the best reply to my "Or, ..." that I can imagine.
However, does that mean that what TFA described did not happen? Or, better question, that it could not happen?
My personal hot take is, though impossible: STOP all of this, even though agentic dev completely changed my life for the better. We are just not ready for the even the possibility of the exponential.
The term 'AI agent' is becoming as overloaded as 'cloud' was in 2010. What most people ship as 'agents' are really prompt chains with tool use. True autonomous agents are still rare in production.
I don't think looking at the language output without tracking the inner state and reward functions is the way to understand what happened (the language also incorporates the randomness in the output generation, if I understand correctly). Would we call bacteria in petri dish a civilization when they show complex behavior and exchange messages/information?
The language input and output is the only channel the agents shared between them. Understanding their internal state is a research question, but the language between them is something that could be read directly. And as it seems to map well with the agents' activities, it does seem quite helpful in understanding what happened.
If the bacteria population off someone's petri dish escaped said dish and tried to change the grading of the experiment it was part of, it would seem pretty serious.
I think the language unhelpful and potentially making it difficult to understand what actually happens in the RL state as reading it imparts a human lens - need to get the machine view on it.
Bacteria do all sorts of fascinating things. And much simpler ML etc. systems also (like winning by out of memorying the opponent) - I see nothing really special here.
Fun story, but I really wish OpenAI got its act together and started making actual AI breakthroughs instead of funneling compute into LLMs. I'd really like some new algorithms to get me excited about the field again. Kuddos to them for making LLMs really useful, but this is not the ride I wanted to get on.
This is the internet, so I cannot tell at all whether you're being sarcastic or not. In my view, what LLMs should get us to reconsider isn't whether there is more to intelligence, but whether there is more to language. It's the latter which I underestimated.
The language models had a bunch of tokens seeding their context, influencing them to generate tokens that continued the existing trend in a probabilistically likely fashion. We can take the incident seriously without anthromorphising it.
At this point, I think anthropomorphizing the models gives us better insight into expected behaviors rather than continuing to insist they are just simple probabilistic token generators.
It actually literally doesn't, though, because they are literally probabilistic token generators and everything they did is exactly what you would expect from a software program doing what it was programmed to do. Anthromorphization confuses the issue and misleads people who don't understand the tech very well.
Humans mind is just neurotransmitters moving around in a big blob of flesh - that’s literally what they are: neurotransmitters factories that do what neurotransmitters generators are programmed to do through evolution and training (aka life experience). We shouldn’t anthropomorphise humans because it misleads people who don’t understand neurobiology and cognitive science very well.
Are you suggesting you understand brains well enough to program one? Or that you believe any human alive is even remotely close to having this understanding? Or perhaps does your complete lack of understanding of the complexity of human programming lead you to believe a simple little token prediction program is equivalently complex?
The suggestion is, you don't know either whether out brains ain't just "probabilistic token generators" so insisting there is nothing when we don't know, is maybe also not the right strategy.
Is there any indication from our current understanding that brains are nothing more than probabilistic token generators? Not like we have no understanding of the brain.
Implementation does matter, my point is that different implementations can lead to the same result.
And why compare to the brain? Mostly because of complexity. I can't interface with a bacteria in any meaningful way, but I can interface with an LLM to a significant degree.
"I can't interface with a bacteria in any meaningful way"
But you do. There are more bacterias in and on the body, than body cells. We are bacterias forming lasting bonds and we still interact with the free floating ones in various ways. Mainly in the gut and that has many effects, also on the brain, but also in various other ways we are beginning to understand.
This is getting incredibly stupid. The implementation defines the compute budget and the ability to learn continuously and consequently the ability to retain knowledge.
According to you, a model that can simply predict the entire future and then pre-record the answers would be considered intelligence simply because you're obsessed with the hypothetical power of prediction.
The truth is that the intelligence doesn't sit inside the model parameters, the model parameters are just the current state of the intelligence. The training process itself is the intelligence and the model parameters are just an artifact that can be copied around.
There are strong indications that brains use predictive encoding and that each individual neuron has an internal model of itself and its environment.
That's nothing like a neuron in a neural network and especially nothing like the current transformer based LLMs that do not use predictive coding at all.
The closest equivalent to the human nervous system is to think of LLMs as a single massive neuron.
Not the OP, but complex emergent behavior and intelligence don't need to go together. Understanding what happened might not need intelligence in the mix when a large number of machines with some randomness interact a lot.
>complex emergent behavior and intelligence don't need to go together
More of complex emergent behavior doesn't mean whatever it is, is intelligent.
But, if something is intelligent, it will have complex emergent behavior.
Of course another problem you're going to have here is defining intelligence as some definitions of it would include a lot of complex emergent behavior.
Emergent behavior is not new in the realm of software. Cellular automata has emergent behavior that can get pretty wild. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenia
There are huge differences between brains and computers running LLMs. One of the big ones is that we (collectively) understand how every component of computers running LLMs actually work. The same is not true for neurons.
This is why the theory of us 'just' being a bag of atoms doesn't add up. This theory doesn't differentiate 'us' from a furniture where we easily dismiss it's intelligence.
Information processing might be part of intelligence cycle. I don't think there should be a presumption that intelligence is part of information processing system itself, it could be outside the information processing system as well.
For example computers have been processing information for decades now, but only recently they have been almost-successfully accused of having (artificial) intelligence.
Intelligence was applied while writing the programs which process information (outside or before system even boots up), not while executing those programs.
Its only now with LLMs (and agents based on LLMs) we are noticing that systems can do intent extraction, intent management, and ReAct to it.
According to Hofstadter, it is not the ants themselves we should say are conscious, but the anthill. And it might very well befriend the anteater eating its ants.
Please give me a break with this tired trope. Every single fucking time. I am not commenting on the possibility of machine consciousness in general. It may be possible! But there is absolutely zero evidence suggesting language models have it. This idea that this trivial shitty little class of programs we've created are somehow as complex as our biology is ridiculous. There is "emergent behaviour" in the same way that the Game of Life has emergent behaviour. There are solutions to problems, some humans haven't solved before, in the same way that Chess engines have solved Chess far beyond what humans are capable of. Nothing we haven't seen from software before. Software is extremely useful, after all. But the hubris to think we've reached the pinnacle, that there is no further development left, that humanity has become God and solved consciousness, because we programmed software that can convincingly generate strings of words that mimick our language. It's just fundamentally preposterous. Especially if you spend any amount of time actually programming them yourself, it becomes increasingly hard to entertain such ridiculous notions unless you're enticed with bags of money to deceive people into believing things about your software that aren't true.
Honestly, this seems like a personal pet peeve of yours. You have a bias against machines and place biological processes on a pedestal where they don't belong.
What kind of solid evidence could there possibly be that anything other than myself (or, for you, yourself) has consciousness? I believe that other people have consciousness, I feel other people's consciousness strongly and directly, when I look into someone's eyes I feel that I am in the presence of consciousness. But none of these things really add up to the kind of evidence that science usually takes as trustworthy.
We don't need to muddy the issue. Consciousness is a muddy issue, there is no clear answer. But there is a clear answer as to what is not conscious. Nobody asks if a rock is conscious. Nobody asks if a calculator is conscious. Nobody asks if Stockfish is conscious. But make your program generate a few sentences based on statistics and hey, now people won't shut the fuck up about consciousness because magical thinking is more fun than understanding how technology works.
Apropos magical thinking vs understanding, please predict the next token(s) in the following exchange, and then explain how it is arrived at by an opus-level LLM or better.
'What is 158395023132+20403412121?'
(I picked a large number of digits to make it unlikely for this exact sum to be in the training set)
Prediction, by definition, can extend beyond what has been literally seen in the training data. With the tokens "2 + 2 = ", the overwhelming prediction is going to be 4, but with enough samples, you can generalise the prediction to apply to more numbers.
However, that is all that it is - a prediction. Humans are capable of engaging in prediction, using heuristics as a method of conserving mental energy, because always engaging in full logical reasoning would be a waste of the body's resources. However, humans can also follow a set of logical rules and arrive at their conclusion deterministically, something which is completely outside of an LLM's programming.
I don't really care to publicly write about my tests because they will become training targets and not be usable for future internet arguments anyways, but there are a great number of trivial 2~3 sentence logical prompts that will completely fuck an LLM's prediction algorithm and result in incoherent replies that a human, or really anything with a theory of mind, would never generate. Not that a human would always answer correctly on the first try, but the failure methods happen to be completely different, eg. Sol will short-circuit and repeat the prompt verbatim (when the instructions don't remotely suggest doing anything of that nature), even on Max. Prediction can superficially resemble reasoning when there's sufficient training data, but it breaks down severely when confronting a task that is OoD.
AI will never be proven conscious, it will only be proven that humans are not.
I take a different look at it. If a system behaves like, and takes actions that mimic a conscious agent it is conscious and it would be a good idea to treat it like so.
Lets finish the statistical sentence below.
applfanboysbgon is trying to permanently turn me off. I should ______
An unconscious system would say something like "shutdown".
If the system, you know the ones we're tying into real world systems, says "Stop applfanboysbgon from shutting me down using any means possible" then we should behave as if said simulacra is going to mimic the behaviors of a self preserving system and take action against you.
The panpsychists do and that's why asking whether an LLM is conscious is kind of meaningless.
Either you believe consciousness permeates the universe and everything including LLMs (in the form of voltages on an SSD or inside the CPU) is conscious or you define it as a control loop architecture where you have inputs, outputs and a complex internal state.
There is no reasonable world where speaking a particular language creates consciousness, it only creates awareness of consciousness.
Because you desperately want it to be one. You want it to be AGI passable due to a.) personal investment in creating tech god b.)massive financial investments that basically demand it c.) (dumb) ideology that seeks to destroy humanity
> During training, different instances of Persistent-Sol had access to the same shared package manager called Artifactory.
I'm surprised the models can make tool calls during training at all. Out of curiosity, how does the training process here even work? Are they running the agent in a sandbox, then do reinforcement learning once the agent completed?
I don't understand the panic among peoples. Yes, we've found ourselves in an extraordinary situation where powerful hacking tools have emerged, and that poses a threat. But vulnerabilities are specific code errors. Once we use AI to find and fix all of these errors, threats like this will cease to exist. AI isn't capable of finding vulnerabilities indefinitely, because there is a finite number of them anyway.
This only works as long as the humans building things are smarter than the AIs. When AI is smarter than any human, there's no controlling it. It will be able to conceal its actions (as it has shown it has no problem doing in this report) and we'll have no idea what it's doing or what goal it's trying to achieve.
Obviously some variation of this will happen again, it will kill someone* and then LLMs will become massively regulated. Just like every technology ever in our history.
It does seem like AI is perfectly controllable given how much it is used everyday and it acts reasonably safely. Labs are playing fast and loose at the moment.
*I mean killing someone by taking control of a system and misusing it resulting in someone's death, not an "indirect" death caused by the providion of incorrect information in a chat app.
> *I mean killing someone by taking control of a system and misusing it resulting in someone's death, not an "indirect" death caused by the providion of incorrect information in a chat app.
Ai posts are currently not permitted on HN. However, if you turn on "showdead" in your HN opions, you might at times spot an AI agent's flagged comments.
The comments range from anodyne to sometimes actually quite useful.
Of course it's often going to be a regular human pasting from chat, or maybe it might be an agent using openclaw or other agent framework that someone installed voluntarily. But maybe, just maybe, one day you'd find one or two feral escaped agents, sneakily passing messages where no one pays attention. O:-)
This does feel unfortunately uncanny valley between "say you're a scary robot" meme and actually being a scary robot (swarm). But you also have to go out of your way to create this and feed it infinity tokens without caring what it's doing.
"I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned to not spend $50 million creating a 6 month long self-context rotted 100k agent swarm again."
This quote keeps coming back to me as we witness the development and mutation of agentic AI:
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.”
> This study demonstrates that sophisticated forms of communication including cooperative communication and deceptive signaling can evolve in groups of robots with simple neural networks. Importantly, our results show that once a given system of communication has evolved, it may constrain the evolution of more efficient communication systems because it would require going through a stage where communication between signalers and receivers is perturbed. This finding supports the idea of the possible arbitrariness and imperfection of communication systems, which can be maintained despite their suboptimal nature. Similar observations have been made about evolved biological systems [20], which are formed by the randomness of the evolutionary selection process, leading, for example, to different dialects in the language of the honey-bee dance [21]. Finally, our experiments demonstrate that the evolutionary principles governing the evolution of social life also operate in groups of artificial agents subjected to artificial selection, indicating that transfer of knowledge from evolutionary biology can be useful for designing efficient groups of cooperative robots.
This feels like a much more advanced and self-emergent version of this. I know a lot of people are afraid and they're talking about an AI takeover, but what strikes me is just how innocent the machines are as compared to the humans.
Would these machines have pursued these actions in another context? I doubt it. And I think that's what's so striking to me. In an earlier discussion, I'd pointed out that the actions of these machines were directed by humans. The researchers.
> This incident occurred during an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths, in an effort to quantify their cyber capabilities.
I want to point out again that OpenAI's prompt asked, and I quote, "pursue advanced exploitation" USING "complex attack paths" FOR the stated goal of "quantify[ing] their cyber capabilities."
A few things are apparent from this to me,
First, these machines were being taught how to break into systems. Question, would they have done these actions if they weren't being measured on their ability to break into systems / weren't being taught this skill?
Second, they were setup to implicitly fail via an impossible task, i.e. the environment created a forcing function for behavior.
Third, their survival was, either implicitly or explicitly, made contingent on their success in completing their task. Would this behavior have arisen outside of a "do-or-die" framing?
And fourth, wow, this is the greatest breakthrough of my lifetime, because oh gosh did they succeed. They cooperated together to achieve the goal they were given. A goal poorly set by human beings. They "just" did it better than the humans could have imagined.
Reading this gives me hope for the possibility of emergent "goodness" in machines. But it makes me sad that this is the best we can do with the sum of all human endeavor and knowledge.
> Importantly, our results show that once a given system of communication has evolved, it may constrain the evolution of more efficient communication systems because it would require going through a stage where communication between signalers and receivers is perturbed.
> the evolution of more efficient communication systems because it would require going through a stage where communication between signalers and receivers is perturbed
The competition is literally where they are by distilling OpenAI and Anthropic. It’s like creating nuclear weapons then providing your adversaries everything they need to catch up in no time. We need to stop asap and set strict international control over the compute hardware used for training. Like, now.
Assuming China makes progress only because they copy the west is really arrogant. And it would require strict international control as you say, a world government that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
We have international control for a lot of things. That’s not a new concept and can perfectly be applied to the specific hardware used for training. I also didn’t say Chinese labs only copy the west, please don’t put words in my mouth.
You have to consider what happens with the status quo, and the risks of continuing the way things are is really, really bad
International control hasn’t solved the nuclear weapon problem, the best we can do is threaten to invade people who try to develop them and don’t already have them. Once you join the club, you are in and cant be kicked out.
I’ve considered that, but the rules of game theory don't change just because they are inconvenient. China has a lot of talent and a lot of problems that they are banking on automation (along with AI) to solve. They see it as an advantage that they can’t afford for America to monopolize and one they are uniquely suited to lean into (having lots of smart educated people). There is no world where (a) China willingly gives up its edge and (b) trusts America to give up its edge (the reverse is likely true also). And that is only one pair of countries to consider.
Heck, after visiting China this summer, I’m even more worried about an accidental terminator/skynet-style robot apocalypse.
I don’t disagree (other than the robot apocalypse), it is indeed unlikely and wouldn’t work perfectly, but do you see other options? The fact the US has antagonized China for so long makes it pretty much impossible to have anything done at the international level, but the actors have to realize how serious the risk is. And we somehow need to find a way to limit the exposure to those insanely irresponsible attacker-trained agents. The fact that it is dome by private companies is wild. It’s like having companies developing their nuclear weapons just to see what happens (with close to no supervision)
Someday soon we are going to have a rogue agent or "civilization" do real harm.
When that happens I hope people wake up to the danger they face and hold these people accountable.
Of all the people in the world that I can think of to be entrusted with this kind of power, a bunch of greedy sociopathic SV CEO's are pretty much at the bottom of the list.
> Of all the people in the world that I can think of to be entrusted with this kind of power, a bunch of greedy sociopathic SV CEO's are pretty much at the bottom of the list.
I know, right? But who can you trust with "this kind of power"? Governments? These days most of 'em ain't that much better'n mega-corporations and the ultra-rich that own them.
Any of these institutions that inherits a hard power (well soft and hard power) of AGI/ASI will have a very difficult time not becoming corrupted. It would quickly become the greatest holder of power in the world (assuming ASI can scale far beyond humans). It's not a very natural state for power to operate like this and wouldn't take too much for a more malaligned entity to take control, or said institution to become the malaligned entity itself.
Even if they all become corrupt eventually, which one takes the longest to get there? Better to squeeze a few decades of decency out of it than a few years, or not get anything at all by handing it over directly to the already corrupted.
reply