cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50398452
Just when you think @ZuckyZuck is finally out of ideas - to steal.
It starts to feel like even a weak LLM like MetaAI is more creative than him.
Maybe we already have created truly artificial intelligence because he is more of an SLM: a Small Language Model?
It’s not clear what you mean when you say “on their own”. It wasn’t like the LLM was idle and randomly decided to start hacking. At least for the OpenAI one, it was being tested and given a task, and it determined that part of accomplishing that task was hacking another server. It was supposed to be isolated in a secure “sandbox” not connected to the internet, but found a vulnerability in some software running in the sandbox and broke out.
Edit: I should add that there are credible accusations that these companies are intentionally making it possible to break out of their test environments for publicity.
What you’re describing is exactly what I’m wondering. Maybe I’m just not too deep into the topic, but it seems so arbitrary to me that they went with the whole isolation thing in the first place for no reason that I can see, other than the “oh no, it’s hacking stuff!” narrative being pre-planned and orchestrated for.
In other words, I am siding with the accusations of this whole wave of “AI” suddenly hacking into stuff, with different models from different companies wondrously doing the same thing one after another, being a publicity stunt that one company started and others, as they do, copying just to stay relevant.
Although I feel like maybe I’m going Chuck McGill here because I am very biased.
The models are tested, among other things, on their ability to turn vulnerabilities into exploits. The OpenAI scenario was exactly this.
It is a very wise practice to test these things in isolation, especially when you’re telling it to hack.
I’m not completely sold on it being a publicity stunt, personally. The law was broken by these models, and I don’t believe these companies want to start people and politicians asking the question about who is culpable when an AI breaks the law.