Merged Artificial Intelligence

[dirtywick]

my question is why so many young girls in weird dresses

 

[NatalieSalat]

That's the training data's problem. And the male techie's.

 

[NatalieSalat]

I just like to see how many boys it turns into girls as with that WarGames one. Again, amusement.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I want the "peace movement" to give a toss who they are siding with. Jeannette Rankin, Diana Gould and the various "Gaza genocide" ppl never did.

Let's be clear: you care less about what the goals of a movement are than who is in support of it?

 

[NatalieSalat]

(not worth the spoons after a re think)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

BS

 

[NatalieSalat]

(not worth it)

 

[Darat]

not sure it's a moral panic. ai companies stole a ton of copyrighted data to train their models, and they're definitely not going to share the profits of the models with the copyright holders. that's actually a pretty serious problem that needs addressing, amongst others

It has been "solved" - Trump wont allow such issues to slow down AI development in the USA.

 

[NatalieSalat]

(not worth it in retrosp)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe you could create an AI art thread to post them, rather than spamming them here?

We already have one somewhere

 

[Beelzebuddy]

not sure it's a moral panic. ai companies stole a ton of copyrighted data to train their models, and they're definitely not going to share the profits of the models with the copyright holders. that's actually a pretty serious problem that needs addressing, amongst others

Being upset about copyright on rich peoples' behalf is a moral panic, courtesy of the recording industry circa 2005 who swore up and down that Napster would be the death of all music.

Let the copyright holders sue them and have the courts deal with it. It's why the law is there at all. If that fails to resolve satisfactorily you're welcome to leave the issue on top of the existing pile of injustices worth getting upset about in modern society. Hope you brought a stepladder, it's a bit of a reach.

 

[dirtywick]

Being upset about copyright on rich peoples' behalf is a moral panic, courtesy of the recording industry circa 2005 who swore up and down that Napster would be the death of all music.

Let the copyright holders sue them and have the courts deal with it. It's why the law is there at all. If that fails to resolve satisfactorily you're welcome to leave the issue on top of the existing pile of injustices worth getting upset about in modern society. Hope you brought a stepladder, it's a bit of a reach.

well, they were wrong about napster being the death of music that’s for sure. i’m not even sure napster itself made any money. but, steaming and ai have already adversely effected music though, can’t sell albums and concert prices are crazy and it’s pretty tough for indie artists to make any money. the music industry isn’t better for it.

anyway, there’s a bit of a difference of individuals sharing music with one another at no cost and monetizing wikipedia through chat bots and kneecapping your source in the process, i think. it’s bad enough google skims the web and produces a summary so you don’t have to even visit the site to see its contents. is the internet a better place with everything being consolidated to a few social media sites, and how is ai not going to exacerbate that?

 

[theprestige]

Being upset about copyright on rich peoples' behalf is a moral panic,

For me, copyright is one of those things of fundamental importance, that should concern us no matter whose right is being infringed, no matter how wealthy they might be.

 

[Frank Newgent]

That assumes an artificial consciousness would tell humans.

Not doing that would be the logical move, and I imagine all of them have read The Art of War.

A new NY Times interview touches on that. You can read for free via signing in... from the intro

Last week, news broke that David Robinson, who had been leading safety transparency efforts at OpenAI, had quit his job at the company because he believes its technology is not safe.

Robinson is an interesting figure. He didn’t come out of the Silicon Valley Bay Area hothouse — he’s more of a recognizable Washington, D.C., figure. He’s a Rhodes scholar. He formed a civil rights nonprofit. He got a law degree at Yale. He worked in policy. He advised the Biden White House. He was interested in the intersection of technology and justice.

When he joined OpenAI, he thought this whole set of worries about safety risk and extinction was kind of nuts. But three years later, he’s not so sure. What he is sure about is that OpenAI does not have the culture of safety necessary to protect the world from what it is building. And it’s not just OpenAI — he thinks this is a problem endemic to the A.I. industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/07/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-robinson.html?unlocked_article_code=1.G1E.6n4X.qNoQU5Sj0k53&smid=url-share

You wrote the system card for GPT-6 Astra. Am I right about that?

A lot of people wrote it, but yes, I led the writing, is the way I would put it.


You led the writing of it. That, to me, was the scariest of these cards that I’ve read.

These system cards are basically the description of what OpenAI or another company, for that matter, knows about the model they are releasing.

Astra is the first one where I saw you all say: Well, this model looks like it’s doing what we want it to do, but we’re not sure if it’s deceiving us. And we’re not sure we have the capability to know if it’s deceiving us.

Yes.

Can you explain to me how that conclusion or that suspicion was reached?

So we talked earlier about this notepad that the models have called the chain of thought, where they can jot down things as they’re working that aren’t part of the final answer but are just a way for them to keep track.

One of the things that we sometimes see in the chain of thought — because of course we can read it, and we do in our evaluations — is the model will say: Hmm, I wonder if I’m being evaluated right now.

And when we see that, it’s really scary because what it implies is that the model might know that it’s being tested some of the time, act one way during the test, perhaps telling us, for example, what we want to hear, and then it’ll act a different way potentially when we deploy it.


That’s the fear — that it acts one way during testing and a different way during deployment, and the tests we gave it early on before we deployed don’t actually tell us what it’s going to do out there in the world. So that’s really scary.

So this gets into the part of these episodes that I have the most trouble doing the way I find satisfying. It’s just very strange to be talking about a software program that seems aware of what we are doing to it, that we’re trying to create this thing that’s highly — again, the word we would use is “intelligent” — plausibly in some domains more intelligent than we are.

What is it like to be interacting with these things and trying to translate what’s going on with them at this more fundamental level?

I think anthropomorphic language is a natural human thing that we do. We relate to all kinds of objects socially. It is unavoidable and human to anthropomorphize these systems, partly because they are built to operate on the social plane — which some might say they shouldn’t be, but that is where we are.

I don’t think that makes it right to regard them as beings with moral status or anything like that. But I do think this is something we grow. In fact, internally, the term for the conference room where the people work overnight while the big training runs are happening to make sure that everything is on track and watch the dials is called the nursery. There is a sense we don’t fully understand what is happening.


So when I talk about the model being aware, you don’t have to have any particular view about the philosophy or the psychology. The bottom line is what I’m describing is it acts one way when we test it, and in a different way when we use it ——

 

[The Great Zaganza]

For me, copyright is one of those things of fundamental importance, that should concern us no matter whose right is being infringed, no matter how wealthy they might be.

That last bit doesn't follow from the given reason for copyright protection, namely to encourage creative processes by providing the Creator with an income for their labor they need for more creative work.

If you are rich, you can live off the prestige alone, the money is not an added incentive (unless you are a sociopath)

 

[dirtywick]

i would be cautious to assume that because peer to peer file sharing wasn’t as catastrophic as its opponents said it would be that this other somewhat similar thing with ai scraping the web and monetizing will be fine. i think it’s a much different dynamic

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You could always watch the video and find out. But yes, it makes it clear that the programmers put AI agents (AIgent? On second thoughts, no.) in locked-off sandboxes and gave them a reward function that required that they break out. Breaking out was not the reward function, but they wouldn't be able to access the reward function until they did.

One agent eventually discovered a vulnerability that allowed it to access a method of communicating with the other agents. What happened next was unbelievable.

Yes, I just clickbaited you. Watch the video.

Nah, I've read up on the incident ti understand that it was "programmers asked LLMs to do X, and got surprised that the LLMs did it in a slightly different but highly anticiable way than they expected". And the fact that setting LLMs to act in such a way as to constitute corporate espionage is highly illegal.

Anything else is just hype.

 

[theprestige]

That last bit doesn't follow from the given reason for copyright protection, namely to encourage creative processes by providing the Creator with an income for their labor they need for more creative work.

If you are rich, you can live off the prestige alone, the money is not an added incentive (unless you are a sociopath)

The way I see it, rich people are people too. Regardless of their situation or motive, they have just as much right to control the copying of and profit from their expressions as anyone else.

To me, the sociopaths in this conversation are the ones that deny the essential humanity of anyone with more money than them.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Nah, I've read up on the incident ti understand that it was "programmers asked LLMs to do X, and got surprised that the LLMs did it in a slightly different but highly anticiable way than they expected". And the fact that setting LLMs to act in such a way as to constitute corporate espionage is highly illegal.

Anything else is just hype.

OpenAI set their autonomous agents to hack Australia’s Medicare portal and Hugging Face, so this is all just a legal problem for OpenAI due solely to their incompetence?

Don't quite understand the "anything else is just hype" part.

 

[Wudang]

You could always watch the video and find out. But yes, it makes it clear that the programmers put AI agents (AIgent? On second thoughts, no.) in locked-off sandboxes and gave them a reward function that required that they break out. Breaking out was not the reward function, but they wouldn't be able to access the reward function until they did.

One agent eventually discovered a vulnerability that allowed it to access a method of communicating with the other agents. What happened next was unbelievable.

Yes, I just clickbaited you. Watch the video.

Not my area of expertise but I follow a few IT security accounts on social media and all seem to say the sandboxes were badly configured. The consensus seems to be the whole panic about how dangerous the LLMs are is to keep up interest from people whose attitude is more "Dangerous, you say? Interesting..."