Once you understand that these are chatbots that were designed to complete challenges like this, using tactics like this, you can understand that the chatbots didn’t “go rogue.” They did what they were designed to do, and because OpenAI ran them with inadequate supervision (without a “human in the loop” that checked each iteration through the Python loop to ensure it hadn’t gone off the rails), they trashed a competitor’s servers.

Designing autonomous, malicious software is generally considered irresponsible and dangerous. If you showed up at Defcon and gave a talk about how your autonomous malware did something unexpected and damaged someone else’s computers, the first question from the audience would be “Why are you so shit at making secure sandboxes?” It wouldn’t be “How are you so awesome at making hacking tools?”

The fact that OpenAI is making it much easier for unskilled people to break into and damage servers is indeed very bad news, but it’s not new bad news. Irresponsible parties have been doing this for years, most notably the NSA…

Riley had a very good way of summarizing this: “LLMs are real, AI is fake.” LLMs – chatbots trained on things like CTF logs that can break into servers – are real. They’re on a continuum with other hacking tools that have been steadily demonstrating the fragility of the modern digital world, albeit without inspiring anyone in power to do anything about it.

“AI” – chatbots that wake up, “set their own goals,” and “spontaneously” start hacking servers – is fake. It doesn’t have “a 10% chance of ending the human race.” The Hugging Face hack isn’t a mysterious, supernatural occurrence. It’s a Python loop and a chatbot. The people responsible didn’t accidentally create god: they created autonomous malicious software and then failed to closely monitor it, resulting in it doing something both foreseeable and bad.

It’s fine to worry about this new suite of tools that give even stupider people the ability to trash even more computers. You should worry about that – and demand better security practices from firms and governments, including a blanket prohibition on NOBUS-style vulnerability hoarding. That’s a productive kind of worrying, with a chance of addressing your area of concern. It’s infinitely more reasonable than locking yourself in the toilet with a flashlight and saying “Ayyyyy Eyyyyyye” into the mirror until you wet yourself.

  • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    How do you regulate it? If it’s a legitimate threat to the species, you use the full power of law to prevent it. And you apply incredibly draconian punishments. You hang anyone that tries to build a bot beyond a certain level of capability.

    I think we need a new law. “Treason against mankind.” You build a machine that threatens the existence of the human race? Your head ends up on a pike.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      you use the full power of law to prevent it. And you apply incredibly draconian punishments. You hang anyone that tries to build a bot beyond a certain level of capability.

      Like pickpocketing? That worked so well.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          laws against trying to build biological weapons in your basement. That has worked pretty damn well.

          Did it? And I suppose laws against dosing municipal water supplies with LSD and similar are the reason that hasn’t happened yet too?