[xelxebar]

Considering incentive structures at play is solid epistemiology, but the line of thinking in your comment is a tad reductive, IMHO.

In the hypothetical world where 1 is true, what different evidence do you expect to see than in worlds 2 and 3?

If I were an unscrupulous OAI exec and wanted to opticsmaxx in this way, I wouldn't whip up a single, mild incident. Instead, I might burn gigatokens to 0day a few high-profile suppliers, and then have the model responsibly disclose those breaches. If we're willing to lie collude, and cheat, this story is easy to manufacture with at least as much credibility as the huggingface incident but with the advantage of looking way more impressive and spooking less regulators. And if I really were this evil exec, I would spend more than 30 seconds thinking up an even better strategy here.

If, in contrast, we expect models to eventually breach honest and decent attempts at containment, then I'd exist something sorta like this huggingface story that looks like a combination of impressive and incompetent. I'm not sure whether I'd expect it to come out of a frontier lab or a partner or a consumer, though.

> I'm inclined to believe it was intentional or careless at best since simple network and sandbox controls makes this attack impossible.

Forgive the Saucyness here, but impossible? Really? A security researcher that makes absolutist claims like these looks fatally naïve, IMHO.

[AdamConwayIE]

Yeah, I'm reminded of container escapes, VM escapes etc. There have been plenty in the past; VirtualBox E1000 (I think?) comes to mind from a few years ago. If we are to believe this model can find 0days, I'm on board with the idea it could do so in sandbox.

That's not to say I believe it outright, but people are being oddly dismissive and acting as if it's impossible to break out of a sandbox. Which we've seen time and time again that it absolutely can be.

[dwoosley]

There would be a lot more nuance I’d add with more words, but this isn’t the place to write books so I cut it short (the comment was already lengthy).

Still, to address your comment about what you’d expect to see in world 2 and 3 (assume 1 was true), that’s why 1 was addressed separately. I don’t believe I argued that the potential for world 2 or 3 prevented world 1.

As for the ‘evil exec’s strategy’, I would call this a mild incident but if it were much less I wouldn’t guess they would get a lot of press. The press coverage is certainly repaying the token cost as well. If it was planned, it seems to be going well given the press coverage I’ve seen on it. So I wouldn’t assume the plan lacked enough to weaken the idea that it’s a plan. But to be clear, my stance is just based on the info I see now which isn’t a lot… subject to change.

As for the containment piece, if you were testing an AI model on its hacking capabilities that you believed was far more capable than anything you’ve seen, I would assume you would air gap it (a network control). Done right (no signals ability) I would argue this could be next to impossible to break out of. But it’s a fair jab to say I should have added some qualification on the “impossible” piece as next to nothing is truly impossible.