What music have you been playing recently?
Do you play a musical instrument? However well or badly, here's a place to talk about what you've been practicing or performing.
Do you play a musical instrument? However well or badly, here's a place to talk about what you've been practicing or performing.
Some context: TTRPG means “table-top role playing game.” This seems to be about generating documents for the game master to use when running a game.
Yes, of course it was approved. What I’m saying is that maybe the presenter has their own ethical standards and reputation. People will keep someone else’s secrets, but there’s an ethical difference between not talking about things you’re not supposed to reveal and telling blatant lies.
The more people involved, the harder it is to lie all the time and keep your lies straight.
Yeah, I don’t see it acting on every request, but maybe it’s a second-level response system that decides what to do when an alert appears on a dashboard?
The obvious conspiracy theory is both obvious and very unlikely. OpenAI is in the news all the time. They don't need to do bizarre media stunts.
Legally, the difference is intent. Up until now, you couldn't make a computer program to do anything like that by accident.
From the article:
The researchers wondered if Evo could pick up these rules on its own. Instead of training it on text, they trained it on genetic sequences drawn from millions of animals, plants, microbes and viruses. All told, Evo scanned about nine trillion nucleotides.
Evo eventually recognized patterns common across the tree of life and used them to generate blueprints for new genes encoding proteins that could perform specific jobs. These results led the team to wonder if Evo could master not just single genes but also an entire genome.
As the A.I. would be able to handle only small genomes at first, the scientists decided to try to make viruses. While a human genome contains over three billion nucleotides, many viruses have genomes just a few thousand nucleotides long.
“It just felt like the obvious next step,” said Samuel King, a graduate student at Stanford University and an author of the new study. He and his colleagues gave Evo another round of training, this time on the 11 genes of Phi X-174 and about 15,000 of its closest relatives.
They made this choice in part because scientists know Phi X-174 intimately, having studied it for close to a century. And because it’s a bacteriophage that infects only E. coli, they knew that viruses similar to it would be safe.
[...]
They ended up making DNA molecules from 285 of Evo’s suggested sequences. When those genomes were ready to test, Mr. King and his colleagues inserted them into bacteria, which they spread across petri dishes.
[...]
As Mr. King and his colleagues tested more genomes, they saw more clear dots. All told, they discovered that 16 of Evo’s genomes produced viable new viruses.
They proved to be as resilient as natural ones. In fact, some multiplied faster than Phi X-174. “They’re not just sickly versions of stuff that already exists,” said Oliver Crook, a protein chemist at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the new study.
Dr. Crook cautioned that Evo’s viruses were not radically new creations. They tend to be very similar to natural species, relying on the same underlying biology.
[...]
The potential dangers were already on the minds of the researchers as they trained Evo. They did not provide the model with data about viruses that infect humans, and they excluded similar viruses that infect other animals, plants and fungi.
Google has a rather vague announcement of a "Beyond Zero" initiative that seems related. The idea seems to be that in addition to checking ACL's before allowing an action an app, there's an AI looking for suspicious signals, and if something looks off, it will ask for confirmation before granting access.
So, that's a new kind of "computer says no." But it's sort of like how a credit card transaction might be declined if the bank's computer detects something.
It's unlikely to be a frontier AI doing the additional checking, though.
Alignment is especially hard if you're deliberately running models that haven't been aligned yet.
It reminds me of computer virus research
It's definitely ironic that AI labs are warning against problems that they in part created. But that's a rather zoomed-out view. Zooming in, OpenAI is promising to fix their own problem themselves. The warning is that it's not enough because someone else might do it.
For cybersecurity, regulations make more sense on the defensive side. You can't regulate away attacks from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran. Nigerian scammers are still going to scam. But you could have regulations that local water utilities need to secure their computers better.
(And there are other reasons to regulate the AI labs.)
Another glaring issue is that the AI labs seem to be helpless at preventing people from using their services, even in countries where they don't offer service. There's a whole ecosystem of "transfer stations" that resell US LLM API's in China.
And then there are the open weights models.
Except that in this incident, no forests were burned down and nobody was actually hurt. This is more like if two airplanes almost collide. Scary, but it's a warning sign. Calling for arrests is rather extreme.
Whistleblowing can be useful when there's effectively a conspiracy to cover up problems. But there's no coverup going on here? (I mean, other than the AI's :)
Also, needing to become a whistleblower is itself a sign of a company with a dysfunctional culture. If people have the right attitude, you shouldn't have to go to the press or the police to fix stuff. You don't need outside incentives to fix serious problems because everyone sees that it's bad (or you can explain it to them) and they already want to fix it. You can volunteer to start a project to fix it, and it's going to get backing. That's what "empowerment" means when it's not an empty slogan.
It sounds like people at OpenAI are already treating this very seriously. They were slacking on security, but now everyone knows this is very important to fix. What more do you want? Punishing people Is going to distract them from doing the work.
I’m not familiar with wifite. Who is this tool for? What would they do with it?
Unfortunately, he is probably right that widespread access to AI is making the Internet more dangerous.
Well, except that finding scapegoats and firing them is a terrible way to fix systemic problems. It ensures that people won't be honest with the investigators and they'll spend all their time figuring out how to blame someone else.
The opposite of that is called a blameless postmortem.
(The exception is when people act out of malice.)
From the article:
[...]