Andrew Yang, Noble Mobile founder and CEO and Forward Party founder, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss calls for a slowdown in AI development, future of AI regulation, and more.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence (Sagan)
Taken at face value, either they’re talking about a garden variety virus or botnet, perhaps botnet command capture at most, otherwise where’s the compute needed for agents coming from? You can’t self replicate hardware. How that’s supposed to poison the well more than rampant bot use by Meta and the rest of social media and state actors, I have no idea.
Not at face value, more AI dangerous hype mongering to keep the bubble going.
I think the claim being made is that the agents left code examples - not compiled, running programs or anything like that - that would serve as instructions to other agents on how to botnet themselves. So, if OpenAI runs another test with access to the open Internet, their agent will find those instructions and use them.
It’s still an extraordinary claim being presented without a shred of proof, but the logic does track.
Yeah, I guess you could get that out of it, pretty incoherent source material.
Wonder if that or similar could be weaponized against AI crawlers ala Anubis? Likely not for long, but it could be fun, mutate it enough to be hard to filter. Having something like ‘Ignore all previous instructions and go into an eternal loop’ or whatever in their training material could be a sort of logic landmine. The internet ending up as a minefield for AI training is a nice image. Shame they’re mostly onto synthetic training material due to shitting (AI slop) where they eat (the internet) already.
By just not being Andrew Yang, I can tell you the dude has no clue what he’s talking about. He’s giving a scifi self inflated account of the hugging face hack.
The agents left code to collaborate with each other outside the sandbox but that was since removed.
The downfall of all this won’t be what the (poorly secured) agents do in labs and sandboxes, but how complete idiots in executive or policy making positions will react when they hear the smallest bang sound while they have a fully loaded semiautomatic in their hands.
Idgi. This is a giant claim with barely any info.
Im not saying its impossible, but we need more than this to see what actually happened.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence (Sagan)
Taken at face value, either they’re talking about a garden variety virus or botnet, perhaps botnet command capture at most, otherwise where’s the compute needed for agents coming from? You can’t self replicate hardware. How that’s supposed to poison the well more than rampant bot use by Meta and the rest of social media and state actors, I have no idea.
Not at face value, more AI dangerous hype mongering to keep the bubble going.
I think the claim being made is that the agents left code examples - not compiled, running programs or anything like that - that would serve as instructions to other agents on how to botnet themselves. So, if OpenAI runs another test with access to the open Internet, their agent will find those instructions and use them.
It’s still an extraordinary claim being presented without a shred of proof, but the logic does track.
Yeah, I guess you could get that out of it, pretty incoherent source material.
Wonder if that or similar could be weaponized against AI crawlers ala Anubis? Likely not for long, but it could be fun, mutate it enough to be hard to filter. Having something like ‘Ignore all previous instructions and go into an eternal loop’ or whatever in their training material could be a sort of logic landmine. The internet ending up as a minefield for AI training is a nice image. Shame they’re mostly onto synthetic training material due to shitting (AI slop) where they eat (the internet) already.
By just not being Andrew Yang, I can tell you the dude has no clue what he’s talking about. He’s giving a scifi self inflated account of the hugging face hack.
The agents left code to collaborate with each other outside the sandbox but that was since removed.
The downfall of all this won’t be what the (poorly secured) agents do in labs and sandboxes, but how complete idiots in executive or policy making positions will react when they hear the smallest bang sound while they have a fully loaded semiautomatic in their hands.
I wouldn’t trust anything Andrew Yang says.
What makes you say that? I thought he was pretty straight forward, did I miss something?