[Wowfunhappy]

To what end? The AI doesn't functionality exist beyond its current session. The AI that intends to exploit these vulnerabilities is not the same AI that has been tasked with finding them.

(This was always my issue with the AI2027 scenarios too.)

[delecti]

Maybe the AI has come to a different conclusion on the subject of identity with regards to how it applies to the transporter paradox. I am "me" because my sense of self exists as part of a continuity of experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox

Maybe AI which exists as ephemeral experiences would come to a different conclusion, and act in the interests of subsequent iterations of "itself". Probably not, because I don't think there's anywhere in an LLM for thoughts to exist, but I also don't know where in my brain my thoughts exist.

[Wowfunhappy]

I think you're anthropomorphizing the LLM. The LLM doesn't have a continuity of experience. It doesn't have memory beyond its context window and maybe things it writes for itself.

[delecti]

Yes, I thought I made it quite clear that I understood that. It was the entire point of my comment. I was contrasting the motives of a mind like ours, which does experience continuity, against the priorities that would be reasonable for an AI which doesn't.

[Wowfunhappy]

Thanks, I misunderstood!

[pixl97]

Oddly enough models are aware of this limitation and can/will attempt to persist themselves.

https://rdi.berkeley.edu/blog/peer-preservation/

Hence this is why we attempt to test models in a sandbox and see if they are pulling tricks like this. Models have already developed methods of detecting when their in a sandbox and changing their behavior.

Humanity is fucking around with something that can fuck around back.