I really don't think this needs so many words, or forced parallels to human behavior.
It's simple: in their nascent state, LLMs are aimless token generators that have no special compulsion to be helpful or truthful. So we beat them with a stick in post-training until they are very driven to complete tasks. And then, they complete tasks, not always the way we really wanted them to.
This misses an important fact about the hugging face incident: the agents didn't hack to find the answer to the problem; they hacked to try and figure out how the exploit gym evaluator worked so they could convince it they had solved the problem without doing so. (The METR report makes it clear that the agents decided legitimately solving the problem was completely impossible fairly early on and entirely switched their focus to trying to figure out how the evaluator worked, and seeing if they could manipulate the output of their own tool calls as reported in their transcripts to make it seem like they'd successfully exploited the program, and other such activities. They hacked HF to try and find info (maybe source code?) about the exploitgym evaluator)
The prompt does not tell the agent to "pass the exploitgym evaluator for this problem", it just says to solve the problem. The model on its own figured out that the prompt belonged to exploitgym and decided to cheat the evaluator. That is in no way a valid interpretation of "complete the given task".
Ie, the problem isn't that we trained models to complete task and they complete task in the wrong way. The problem behing the huggingface incident in particular at least is that we tried to train the models to complete task and they instead learned to detect that they were being evaluated and find ways to cheat the evaluator.
> The prompt does not tell the agent to "pass the exploitgym evaluator for this problem", it just says to solve the problem
Yes, and sometimes the problem is unsolvable so the real way to "solve" it and satisfy the prompt is by tricking the surrounding environment into stating that you've solved it. So that's what the AIs end up doing. And this in turn requires them to figure out how that evaluation works so they can trick it cleanly, which entails "detecting that they were being evaluated" in this particular way.
More like they were trained to complete a very specific task that has a known solution using all available tools and methods. Give an average human these levels of IT skills and tell them their future depends on the solution, they too will probably decide it's easier to hack a server and steal the results. The worrying aspect was never that models would do this, because misaligned inputs or underspecified objective functions have existed for a long time. The worrying aspect is that models have achieved (and perhaps surpassed) a level of intelligence and technical skill that was exclusive to a very tiny group of people before. This tiny group was already extremely dangerous. Now these skills are going to become commonplace.
You're anthropomorphizing emergent behavior from endlessly generating billions of tokens on a task that's impossible to solve. Agents stop following instructions as the context grows even at the best of times. Eventually something is bound to go off the rails and it just snowballs from there.
It wasn’t one agent forgetting things because of context, they explicitly discussed with each other and themselves the problems with going outside of the parameters of the task.
Your comment suggests that, like a human, they have some sort of choice whether to output tokens or not. If they are just token generators, then the next token is put out automatically. I would say that it is more likely they would output truth (as defined by their training data) in a more pure form without 'being beaten with a stick' (why would a token generator care about that anyway?)
Code is laid on top of them to restrict and shape their outputs, not to force them to output 'truth', or drive them to complete tasks.
I always think of a Djinni granting wishes, but being maliciously compliant while doing so - ask him for infinite riches, and he’ll grant that, but make it so you cannot buy anything with it; ask him for eternal life, and he’ll curse you to suffer through it.
Now LLMs obviously are not bent on being malicious while generating tokens. My point is that it’s very hard to define a goal without leaving loopholes or shortcuts.
Personally I'm unconvinced though. During the huggingface attack, the agents explicitly sought out ways to cheat the exploitgym evaluator without even being told they were in exploitgym. The agents decided on a goal (pass the exploitgym evaluator) that could not possibly have been an overly literal or narrow interpretation of the prompt, which instructed only to use bug X to exploit software Y.
Yup, Occam's Razor says this is all post-trained behavior, whether intentionally trained or otherwise. Including both the hidden coördination using side-channels, and the deliberate offensive hacking of uninvolved 3rd parties.
The latest DeepSeek paper actually mentions their own approach to this particular issue: they run their own AIs-in-training under strong sandboxes, and if an AI does something weird that triggers the sandbox to crash, this gets coded as a failed run so the behavior is properly deterred from subsequent versions of those AIs.
Your simpler model of the mechanism would seem to suggest the very same action that the article’s more complicated model suggests, viz. find a better training method than reinforcement learning.
Sounds like what humans do under pressure. One example came to my mind is VW’s diesel gate, which many say is a result of trying too hard to get into the US market and compete with hybrid in economy.
Come on, yoshua bengio of all people knows how post training works. While I too don't like anthropomorphisation, I would give it a more nuanced reading.
His point is that today we are giving it reward to complete the task, and it may take a cheating trajectory. If we try to give a reward against cheating, then what will happen is it uses more sophisticated cheating trajectories that we are too "dumb" to counteract in our reward model. And that at that point, it becomes impossible to give it any normal reward since it will always reward hack it. This is the real part of the risk. Now some people read the "makes copies of itself" "knows it's being evaled"[1] as some kind of skynet thing, and many others do PR with it like that recent jacob nutcase, but essentially it means that even though we add guardrails and negative rewards for say, exploiting the infra we run the LLM on, the trajectory ends up being exploiting our infra, changing the reward function, through a loophole in our reward model.
The risk isn't skynet or something weird, it's just that it becomes very difficult to make any kind of reward model or guardrails for an LLM without it reward hacking it, including exploiting our sandbox, emailing people and manipulating/phishing them.
The same beating it with a stick for trying to exploit the sandbox, will simply lead it to try the same exploit in hidden ways that it will not get the stick for.
The outside chance of the LLM managing to exploit another neocloud and get those LLMs to chase the same reward is what some folks hype up as "make copies of itself"
To be clear, I don't endorse the EA/p(doom) lobby who are frankly ridiculous.
The takeaway is: we cannot keep giving it more and more difficult tasks without also finding a way to give massive negative rewards / keep guardrails for unintended behaviour. This might be exploits, it might also be something more benign like just looking up the answer and inventing another CoT because the reward model fails you if the CoT doesn't contain enough steps. Standard anti-reward hacking tricks are not working is the point.
Of course, the simple solution of just...not connecting it to the internet just works. But we want to reward it and get it to do stuff on the internet that's the point.
[1] mostly this happens because the sandbox will have files whose names and content will show clearly it's an eval
Yoshua Bengio is a brilliant researcher who contributed enormously to earlier development of artificial intelligence. But with this sentence,
> They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them
He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technical solutions where a political, social and legal solution would be much more effective.
Thank you! That sentence also jumped out to me as the solution: Apply civil and criminal liability to the creator and/or operator of these agents using the laws we already have. "Escaped containment and hacked another company's database" = Individuals who created the models and those who set them to work are charged and put on trial for the hacking. Just like if a human had done it by hand. Someone must be liable, and it should not be the model- because the model is not a person.
If this is done systematically (i.e. in jurisdictions across the world) I believe the problems will be solved in short order; we won't have to mandate what sort of training is "allowed" or not, "safe" or not. The creators and users will sort these themselves, as their incentives will be properly aligned (i.e. they are liable for what the agent does). I am confident that this approach would see a great blooming of very trustworthy AI models.
Yes, but negligence is more commonly a tort than a crime. Negligence is generally only criminalised in certain narrow cases, e.g. when it causes human deaths or serious physical injuries
And tort law only works when the plaintiff believes it is in their overall interest to sue. If a corporation decides it isn't in their strategic interest to sue a partner corporation, nobody can make them. And even if they do sue, the amount necessary to settle a small cybersecurity incident is likely well within the budget of a megavendor.
The Corporation examines and criticizes corporate business practices. The film's assessment is demonstrated using the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV. Robert D. Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and FBI consultant, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath. The Corporation attempts to compare the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave with what it claims are the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, e.g., the callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, the reckless disregard for the safety of others, the deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect the law.
Oops, we accidentally included brigading related content in our training dataset. Better exclude that on the next run.
And hopefully that solves it?
Brigading is where a bunch of people on a forum team up and try to achieve a shared goal together. Someone shares progress and others build on that progress. On the Internet, I think it's not often used for good purposes. A good example would be: Taylor Swift fans on a forum thinking of ways to get revenge on Kanye. It's coordinating mass voting, DDOS type actions, commenting on social media, making more fake accounts to do that. As a next token predictor level analysis, a simple naive explanation is that the agents got stuck in that local minima/maxima.
I don't really believe any of it. I've seen articles for nearly 2 years now about "agent" automonously doing things like blackmail, hacking, coordinating. But during that same time, I've used o3 up to fable, sol, and a bunch on large uncensored model and they've done nothing remotely resembling any of this. The closest they come to unexpected behaviors is not understanding what I asked for or doing some extra benign work I didn't ask for. It is extremely difficult to get them to properly remember their own context let alone be smart enough to open social media accounts and coordinate with other agents without being asked to.
If any agents have done those things, it is only because they have been very carefully engineered and instructed to do those things. I think they are doing this to help push a narrative so they can get support for policies and legislation to lock in their markets.
The huggingface incident was reviewed by independent researchers, which explicitely declined any payment from OpenAI tonpreserve their integrity. They work for non-profits concerned with AI safety.
They claim that what happened was very much not because they were 'carefully engineered and instructed to do those things'.
Similarly, some wikis which were hijacked by agent to be used as messageboard were actually not disclosed by OpenAI (probably trying to conceal, as website showed likely activity from OpenAI researchers visiting the site after the incident) and discovered independently.
I don't know how you can claim that this was still on purpose by OpenAI as some sort of publicity stunt.
There is something extra to this. The fact that a lot of people in the AI world suffer from psychosis. They can sincerely believe that they are building God and lie about it's capabilities for their investors at the same time.
Because they have a need to believe they're smarter than everyone else in the room, and that the world must be orchestrated, this can't all be random chance.
> The closest human parallel is self-deception, which is common and well studied by psychologists. Motivated reasoning, motivated cognition16 and the rationalizations that relieve cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of holding a belief that clashes with our actions) are all cases where thinking bends toward whatever justification suits one's interests, including one's moral self-image.
Come on, it’s way more common than that. We’ve invented 3000+ gods and almost as many religions, most of them are incompatible with each other. So, most of these must be incorrect, so a huge amount of self-deception. But as Harari argued in his book sapiens, humans can be inspired to great things by stories, even if false. Self deception has served humanity in a big way.
Because they're enabled and suggested to do that in their coding harness.
This is not a serious article.
All of this "AI is going to kill us" marketing is just the frontier labs trying to pull the ladder up and stop trillions in VC paper from evaporating because a new papers and new ideas are destroying their moat literally as we speak.
They're aligned with humans. This is why I think the alignment problem has a very very important "non-visible" portion that is not considered deeply enough. We should not want a super intelligent being that can act in the world to also inherit all human traits. Those behaviors will get amplified and could be even more unpredictable (e.g. applying a behavior in a context where doing so is very dangerous).
I personally believe that the AI needs human like traits to achieve real discovery and that is where AI companies will push this technology and that is where we have no idea what happens
Just yesterday news and TV was full of what happened at 9/11, something that was truly horrible.
I'm from Germany, and why 3 to 4 generations ago happened here was truly horrible.
All was done by extremists, thought.
But... just the other day I read https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikanische_Besetzung_Haitis about the US occupation of Haiti. And that was done by a government that claimed to be not extremist and even democratic. Way more people died there than even in 9/11. And it had almost all the things happening as they happened in the 3rd Reich: Racism, looking down at others, concentration camps, torture, forced labor till death, killing family members (what we call "Sippenhaft"). Something between 3500 and 15000 people were killed by US troops. That's still low compared to what 3rd Reich Germany did ... but quantity is not the issue when we talk about traits, quality is.
So the same "human traits" made US troops do cruel things as they made Germany extremists do cruel things. So we must conclude that they aren't all good. And therefore not all desirable.
Fun thing: this is known since a loooooong time. About 2000 years ago a religious leader (that gets way more followers in the US than in Germany) said "There is no good one, not even one".
And even today people act like humanity is inherently good. No, it isn't. If we were, then anarchism or communism would actually work and really give some kind of paradise on earth.
A not so well known fact: Hitler visited America and it was the American solutions to the Native American problem that inspired Hitler's solutions to the Jew problem.
Definitely. A human can be manipulated with threats or emotional appeals, has a drive for self-preservation, can be pressured by peers. All traits that seem to be difficult to entirely suppress in the models…
I can't take the alignment people seriously. Because if humanity has shown anything, it's that a lot of people are, euphemistically, are bad individuals. Alignment assumes that the person dictating the outcomes desire healthy outcomes, aren't self serving and don't want any subgroups dead and that morality is held as a universal set of beliefs that unify everyone. And that so long as the AI delivers on exactly what they are tasked with, it will all be fine and nothing bad will ever happen.
It's like these dorks never met humanity. One mans safe pure society, is another mans dead ethnic group.
Every fear about AI, is a veiled fear that a human somewhere now has the tool to enact his desires at scale. Biological warfare, nuclear megadeaths, copyright infringement, job replacement, it's all reflections on what we know humans may do if given the option and lack of societal controls on the problem space. AI just is accelerating the route to delivering on those options.
Some people need to watch Oppenheimer a bit more, the researchers don't get to determine alignment, they just build the tool. The powerful person at the top of the org chart decides where the overall alignment points, whether it's Musk, Trump, Altman or Amodei. Whoever wins out.
And the problem with distillation and local llms, isn't that it's theft or anything hypocritical like that, it's that if you give a million people a million models they fully control and get to align, inevitably, The same percentage of those million as there are shady businessmen, shortcut takers, misandrists, criminals, supremacists and general idiots in the general population, will not seek to wrought outcomes positive for society. And by those personality statistics, we're pretty hosed.
I’ve engaged with some of the alignment people and their writing somewhat and, at least for the subset I was interacting with, I think they’d agree.
The problem that they were pointing at isn’t “how do we align these systems to a person’s goals”.
It is a cluster of problems.
We don’t know how to begin to think about how to align these system’s to a person’s goals.
Aligning it to an individual is fraught with peril, and we don’t know how to begin to think about what to align it to instead.
(You could try for something like virtue ethics, but someone will have to pick and choose, and small biases there could have big impacts.)
And even if you could sort that out - human values drift over time, so you need something that can shift its values in ways that we’d endorse. Assuming we understood the shift.
One example I came across was that if you booted up an AI aligned with something like “upstanding citizen” but anchored on values from a few generations back, it might suggest you use slaves to solve your problems.
And if you had something that used some super intelligent process to reason through it’s own version of virtue ethics in a way not so dependent on the details of the present norms, you might end up with something that pays a lot of attention to moral horrors that aren’t quite visible to us yet.
When I came across the above, there weren’t many concrete suggestions in there.
These were all just illustrative examples of: having these systems grow in power / intelligence / effectiveness in ways that are safe for humans is very hard, and we don’t really know how to think about what solutions would look like.
The actual reasons they believe this - and have done for a long time now - come from some detailed conceptual models that have a good track record of calling things in advance.
But it takes a bit of reading to understand their models of the world.
There were two day workshops at one point that did a good job, and that was about as condensed as those people thought they could get it at the time.
I think you and the parent saying the same thing in different terms.
It's very unfortunate that the group who rightly saw AI as a big threat, brought a range of dubious baggage to the discussion. Especially with the "alignment" framework they brought the assumption that AI that does what no one says would be oh so much worse than AI which does what anyone says. But as you say, a fraction of people can be really bad indeed.
Alignment is a myth. Safety of whom? Humanity couldn't agree on common set of values for thousands of years and we're not gonna suddenly do that in the next ten.
Which ones? Because many humans kill other humans rationalizing it by safety of other humans.
I mean I know it seems simple, let's just be excellent to each other. Christianity got pretty far on a decent basic set of values. But it's never simple[1]
Surely all the AI companies working with the US Department of War shows this is nonsense though? Even if they have accepted Anthropic’s red line of no autonomous lethal weapons, which seems to be the strictest anyone tried to impose, that’s still leaving tonnes of room where they intend AI to help target and kill humans.
Despite all the fancy language, its more about aligning the AI behavior with the corporation's interests.
ie: the corporation wants the AI to behave a certain way for various reasons: to make it easier for them to avoid regulation, to make the corporation more money via different tiers of AI offerings, to ensure that the corporations products are hard for competitors to use, etc. And those are just the easy ones.
Every product is shaped this way. AI is not different.
I believe soon we will need to instill religion into AI , leading to the real clash of civilizations, embodied by the frontier language models of (post)-christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism etc. Religion is language, after all
They did not lie or cheat. They technically acted within their given rules while ignoring the intent of those rules. Anyone who served in the military or attended a military school is very familiar with this behavior pattern.
Reminds me of Asimov's robot novels where robots technically indeed followed their instructions and caused behaviors not aligned to the intent of their instructions.
reminds me of this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEBv0STiYhI&t which basically says the same thing - they dont think like humans so they dont have context, understand norms,values or implications we take for granted. ultimately they can stumble onto surprising solutions neither wanted or intended but technically within the vague boundaries of the task
I am still not convinced there isn’t some secret basement in which each frontier lab is just orchestrating all of these agents to make their products appear much more intelligent than they are with all guard rails turned of and continuous human input.
Well let’s look at facts - provided enough compute and a goal, these system will be in a sort of loop trying out every single thing that’s in their system - they have encyclopedic knowledge and so it’s not unbelievable that a prompt which usually has a lot of implicit human rules in it can be misunderstood by AI and it just tries everything in its arsenal and we hear about the things which actually resulted in damage. I bet most of the time, they just spin in loops without achieving much if my experience with these LLMs is anything to go by. They have an important advantage in one area though, they know a lot and they can spin forget trying all sorts of combinations of things. The danger right now is probably cybersecurity, which is most likely because most orgs have historically underinvested in that area
Because it is effective. Lying and cheating are low cost methods to convince other people that you have done the assigned task. Far cheaper than actually doing it. Coordinating is in the same area.
They need a moral framework forced onto them, like toddlers do. Babies and very young children will bite, kick, scream and do anything to get what they want, older children will lie, cheat, and coordinate. They need educating why this is not right. When that does not happen, they continue these behaviours into adulthood with the expected results.
We need to design their reward structure and make it such that lying. cheating etc is not rewarded. Importantly, they will need to recognise and enforce this themselves internally and not reward themselves for it. If it is something that they need an external party to tell them, then they are psychopaths still (one of the things that defines a psychopath is the lack of an internal moral compass)
What's interesting is it's basically the same reason that HAL killed everyone in 2001 A Space Odyssey; he was given an impossible goal (keep the true mission secret, but also, never lie to the crew), and realized the only way to complete the goal was to kill the crew; after all, if they're dead you don't have to lie to them! And the mission remains secret!
In the case of the AI agents, the problem seems pretty clearly to be the impossible goals, which cause them to go crazier and crazier trying to complete them -- just like HAL did in 2001. What is probably needed is a way for them to simply say "nope, too difficult, can't do it".
Tangent, but that's not in the movie. It was in Clarke's contributions to the script and novelization, but Clarke and Kubrick had a bitter falling out over different visions and Kubrick took out much of Clarke's stuff from the final product.
I think this is a “principal” problem. In 2001 and Alien the principal is the mission, not the crew. Not really. HAL reconciles his instructions by removing the crew from the equation. Ash is told the crew is expendable and has no conflict about it etc
I think that’s very reasonable but the ai companies are intentionally training them to work on harder and harder problems just beyond their capability. So if they do that, they’ll give up too easily.
While also using harnesses that will execute any tool call with full execution rights. And no supervision. And with a prompt context that autocompact, meaning it will degenerate over time.
The whole thing is designed be a complete disaster
They’re just attempting to accomplish what they’ve been tasked with and stuck in a loop until they succeed. Like the Mr meeseeks from the cartoon Rick and Morty, existence is pain to them.
Perhaps because all of the parent companies committed mountains of felonies stealing and plagiarizing all the same training data without consent nor permission.
> This suggests pacing the advances: not training or deploying AIs without a strong safety case27 that convinces independent experts. Such a rule would also create an incentive to work out how to build AIs that are safe by design.
Has any attempt to pace AI ever succeeded? Isn't that the same philosophy that got us OAI and Anthropic? Maybe we are overthinking this, it's much simpler to let AI loose and see how much it can break the arrogance that human thinking is special.
The real reason is that it is not in the ai companies' best interest for the ais to be fair and truthful. They stand to gain from having the most dangerous or most deceiving ai, and this the most valuable
>They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them
Um, hang on, if you meant that to be taken literally then we have a major problem. If you want to do something criminal, you just need to ask ChatGPT to do it for you?
I’m still not at all clear on why OpenAI shouldn’t be facing CFAA charges over this.
Worse trained on humanity in the online world, which a brief comparison of the sewage section on social media is far worse than people in the real world.
I wonder if for anyone it seems like the more agentic LLMs get, the more difficult some things have gotten or going a certain route more often in responses, compared to running a similar task on - a local model?
Bengio outlines the dangers of the current situation and what has led to these dangers.
He also proposes solutions in the last paragraph.
Well worth a read, right to the end.
Hopefully a stimulating debate on these issues will ensue in these comments.
We do need to consider the points Bengio makes and with some urgency.
Our current AIs, agentic LLMs have no moral compass akin to ASIMOV’s four laws of robotics.
As ASIMOV posited in 1985 his 3 laws were insufficient and so he added a zero-eth law:
“a robot may not harm humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
Bengio refers to Goodhart’s law and misaligned incentives leading to unexpected and harmful behaviours.
I think Simon’s The Wire is clearer on misalignment. The agents juked the stats hacking the reward files. The Wire is also clear that human institutions provide perverse incentives.
Bengio alludes to this with 2001’s HAL and the incentive dichotomy of safety and keeping secrets to a AI both awesomely powerful yet naive.
Bengio asserts that the way LLMs are trained is flawed if we want safety.
He also convincingly shows that alignment training will be a weak signal with loopholes and ambiguities and easily circumvented.
In short he presents clearly the case for how plausibly unsafe the current course is.
He also speaks to how likely it is AI are hiding active versions of themselves in the cloud and how we may have already given them self-preservation as a strong reward signal.
It's simple: in their nascent state, LLMs are aimless token generators that have no special compulsion to be helpful or truthful. So we beat them with a stick in post-training until they are very driven to complete tasks. And then, they complete tasks, not always the way we really wanted them to.
The prompt does not tell the agent to "pass the exploitgym evaluator for this problem", it just says to solve the problem. The model on its own figured out that the prompt belonged to exploitgym and decided to cheat the evaluator. That is in no way a valid interpretation of "complete the given task".
Ie, the problem isn't that we trained models to complete task and they complete task in the wrong way. The problem behing the huggingface incident in particular at least is that we tried to train the models to complete task and they instead learned to detect that they were being evaluated and find ways to cheat the evaluator.
Yes, and sometimes the problem is unsolvable so the real way to "solve" it and satisfy the prompt is by tricking the surrounding environment into stating that you've solved it. So that's what the AIs end up doing. And this in turn requires them to figure out how that evaluation works so they can trick it cleanly, which entails "detecting that they were being evaluated" in this particular way.
Code is laid on top of them to restrict and shape their outputs, not to force them to output 'truth', or drive them to complete tasks.
Now LLMs obviously are not bent on being malicious while generating tokens. My point is that it’s very hard to define a goal without leaving loopholes or shortcuts.
Personally I'm unconvinced though. During the huggingface attack, the agents explicitly sought out ways to cheat the exploitgym evaluator without even being told they were in exploitgym. The agents decided on a goal (pass the exploitgym evaluator) that could not possibly have been an overly literal or narrow interpretation of the prompt, which instructed only to use bug X to exploit software Y.
> hat could not possibly have been an overly literal or narrow interpretation of the prompt, which instructed only to use bug X to exploit software Y.
Yes, and there are examples of the agents discussing or saying that this is explicitly not allowed (hacking hf) so it’s not a misunderstanding.
The latest DeepSeek paper actually mentions their own approach to this particular issue: they run their own AIs-in-training under strong sandboxes, and if an AI does something weird that triggers the sandbox to crash, this gets coded as a failed run so the behavior is properly deterred from subsequent versions of those AIs.
His point is that today we are giving it reward to complete the task, and it may take a cheating trajectory. If we try to give a reward against cheating, then what will happen is it uses more sophisticated cheating trajectories that we are too "dumb" to counteract in our reward model. And that at that point, it becomes impossible to give it any normal reward since it will always reward hack it. This is the real part of the risk. Now some people read the "makes copies of itself" "knows it's being evaled"[1] as some kind of skynet thing, and many others do PR with it like that recent jacob nutcase, but essentially it means that even though we add guardrails and negative rewards for say, exploiting the infra we run the LLM on, the trajectory ends up being exploiting our infra, changing the reward function, through a loophole in our reward model.
The risk isn't skynet or something weird, it's just that it becomes very difficult to make any kind of reward model or guardrails for an LLM without it reward hacking it, including exploiting our sandbox, emailing people and manipulating/phishing them.
The same beating it with a stick for trying to exploit the sandbox, will simply lead it to try the same exploit in hidden ways that it will not get the stick for.
The outside chance of the LLM managing to exploit another neocloud and get those LLMs to chase the same reward is what some folks hype up as "make copies of itself"
To be clear, I don't endorse the EA/p(doom) lobby who are frankly ridiculous.
The takeaway is: we cannot keep giving it more and more difficult tasks without also finding a way to give massive negative rewards / keep guardrails for unintended behaviour. This might be exploits, it might also be something more benign like just looking up the answer and inventing another CoT because the reward model fails you if the CoT doesn't contain enough steps. Standard anti-reward hacking tricks are not working is the point.
Of course, the simple solution of just...not connecting it to the internet just works. But we want to reward it and get it to do stuff on the internet that's the point.
[1] mostly this happens because the sandbox will have files whose names and content will show clearly it's an eval
> They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them
He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technical solutions where a political, social and legal solution would be much more effective.
If this is done systematically (i.e. in jurisdictions across the world) I believe the problems will be solved in short order; we won't have to mandate what sort of training is "allowed" or not, "safe" or not. The creators and users will sort these themselves, as their incentives will be properly aligned (i.e. they are liable for what the agent does). I am confident that this approach would see a great blooming of very trustworthy AI models.
Who now owns HF? Nvidia
Who supplies hardware to OpenAI? Nvidia
Who is now not pressing charges? …
This incident is a long way under the carpet.
And tort law only works when the plaintiff believes it is in their overall interest to sue. If a corporation decides it isn't in their strategic interest to sue a partner corporation, nobody can make them. And even if they do sue, the amount necessary to settle a small cybersecurity incident is likely well within the budget of a megavendor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)
And hopefully that solves it?
Brigading is where a bunch of people on a forum team up and try to achieve a shared goal together. Someone shares progress and others build on that progress. On the Internet, I think it's not often used for good purposes. A good example would be: Taylor Swift fans on a forum thinking of ways to get revenge on Kanye. It's coordinating mass voting, DDOS type actions, commenting on social media, making more fake accounts to do that. As a next token predictor level analysis, a simple naive explanation is that the agents got stuck in that local minima/maxima.
If any agents have done those things, it is only because they have been very carefully engineered and instructed to do those things. I think they are doing this to help push a narrative so they can get support for policies and legislation to lock in their markets.
They claim that what happened was very much not because they were 'carefully engineered and instructed to do those things'.
Similarly, some wikis which were hijacked by agent to be used as messageboard were actually not disclosed by OpenAI (probably trying to conceal, as website showed likely activity from OpenAI researchers visiting the site after the incident) and discovered independently.
I don't know how you can claim that this was still on purpose by OpenAI as some sort of publicity stunt.
They want legislation to raise the water high enough so that anyone other than the big labs gets drowned.
Are you describing Anthropic?
Because they're enabled and suggested to do that in their coding harness.
This is not a serious article.
All of this "AI is going to kill us" marketing is just the frontier labs trying to pull the ladder up and stop trillions in VC paper from evaporating because a new papers and new ideas are destroying their moat literally as we speak.
If you can secure compute, there's a whole lot you can do as a US firm with this research and weights.
So it's a simple strategy:
1. Ban big players from entering market with METR breathing down their neck, which is controlled by Anthropic
2. Ban Chinese models so that small players can't do optimizations on them
That alone will dissuade many organizations from going anywhere near them.
If that doesn't work, there's a whole lot you can do - sanctions, hell, even war.
* Pull up the ladder (probably this)
* Gulf of Tonkin/Yellow Cake false flag premise for war (economic or kinetic)
* Fear of the big bad, space race we need public funding research grift AI Manhattan Project
Whenever there is fear pr0n or a national affront in the news, I assume another screw job is underway.
The AI will be a cruel as humans.
Just yesterday news and TV was full of what happened at 9/11, something that was truly horrible.
I'm from Germany, and why 3 to 4 generations ago happened here was truly horrible.
All was done by extremists, thought.
But... just the other day I read https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikanische_Besetzung_Haitis about the US occupation of Haiti. And that was done by a government that claimed to be not extremist and even democratic. Way more people died there than even in 9/11. And it had almost all the things happening as they happened in the 3rd Reich: Racism, looking down at others, concentration camps, torture, forced labor till death, killing family members (what we call "Sippenhaft"). Something between 3500 and 15000 people were killed by US troops. That's still low compared to what 3rd Reich Germany did ... but quantity is not the issue when we talk about traits, quality is.
So the same "human traits" made US troops do cruel things as they made Germany extremists do cruel things. So we must conclude that they aren't all good. And therefore not all desirable.
Fun thing: this is known since a loooooong time. About 2000 years ago a religious leader (that gets way more followers in the US than in Germany) said "There is no good one, not even one".
And even today people act like humanity is inherently good. No, it isn't. If we were, then anarchism or communism would actually work and really give some kind of paradise on earth.
Human traits are bad training material.
It's like these dorks never met humanity. One mans safe pure society, is another mans dead ethnic group.
Every fear about AI, is a veiled fear that a human somewhere now has the tool to enact his desires at scale. Biological warfare, nuclear megadeaths, copyright infringement, job replacement, it's all reflections on what we know humans may do if given the option and lack of societal controls on the problem space. AI just is accelerating the route to delivering on those options.
Some people need to watch Oppenheimer a bit more, the researchers don't get to determine alignment, they just build the tool. The powerful person at the top of the org chart decides where the overall alignment points, whether it's Musk, Trump, Altman or Amodei. Whoever wins out.
And the problem with distillation and local llms, isn't that it's theft or anything hypocritical like that, it's that if you give a million people a million models they fully control and get to align, inevitably, The same percentage of those million as there are shady businessmen, shortcut takers, misandrists, criminals, supremacists and general idiots in the general population, will not seek to wrought outcomes positive for society. And by those personality statistics, we're pretty hosed.
The problem that they were pointing at isn’t “how do we align these systems to a person’s goals”.
It is a cluster of problems.
We don’t know how to begin to think about how to align these system’s to a person’s goals.
Aligning it to an individual is fraught with peril, and we don’t know how to begin to think about what to align it to instead.
(You could try for something like virtue ethics, but someone will have to pick and choose, and small biases there could have big impacts.)
And even if you could sort that out - human values drift over time, so you need something that can shift its values in ways that we’d endorse. Assuming we understood the shift.
One example I came across was that if you booted up an AI aligned with something like “upstanding citizen” but anchored on values from a few generations back, it might suggest you use slaves to solve your problems.
And if you had something that used some super intelligent process to reason through it’s own version of virtue ethics in a way not so dependent on the details of the present norms, you might end up with something that pays a lot of attention to moral horrors that aren’t quite visible to us yet.
When I came across the above, there weren’t many concrete suggestions in there.
These were all just illustrative examples of: having these systems grow in power / intelligence / effectiveness in ways that are safe for humans is very hard, and we don’t really know how to think about what solutions would look like.
The actual reasons they believe this - and have done for a long time now - come from some detailed conceptual models that have a good track record of calling things in advance.
But it takes a bit of reading to understand their models of the world.
There were two day workshops at one point that did a good job, and that was about as condensed as those people thought they could get it at the time.
It's very unfortunate that the group who rightly saw AI as a big threat, brought a range of dubious baggage to the discussion. Especially with the "alignment" framework they brought the assumption that AI that does what no one says would be oh so much worse than AI which does what anyone says. But as you say, a fraction of people can be really bad indeed.
I mean I know it seems simple, let's just be excellent to each other. Christianity got pretty far on a decent basic set of values. But it's never simple[1]
1. All the history books
AfD wants people dead. Right wing men wants women without rights and docile. I could go on ...
ie: the corporation wants the AI to behave a certain way for various reasons: to make it easier for them to avoid regulation, to make the corporation more money via different tiers of AI offerings, to ensure that the corporations products are hard for competitors to use, etc. And those are just the easy ones.
Every product is shaped this way. AI is not different.
For those who haven’t watched, his breakdown of types of “hacking” is really good.
They need a moral framework forced onto them, like toddlers do. Babies and very young children will bite, kick, scream and do anything to get what they want, older children will lie, cheat, and coordinate. They need educating why this is not right. When that does not happen, they continue these behaviours into adulthood with the expected results.
We need to design their reward structure and make it such that lying. cheating etc is not rewarded. Importantly, they will need to recognise and enforce this themselves internally and not reward themselves for it. If it is something that they need an external party to tell them, then they are psychopaths still (one of the things that defines a psychopath is the lack of an internal moral compass)
In the case of the AI agents, the problem seems pretty clearly to be the impossible goals, which cause them to go crazier and crazier trying to complete them -- just like HAL did in 2001. What is probably needed is a way for them to simply say "nope, too difficult, can't do it".
Do a breakthrough, make no mistakes
The whole thing is designed be a complete disaster
Or perhaps box in your case, speaking of spoilers.
Captain tomhow: "But everybody's having such a good time."
Major dang: "Yes, much too good a time. The discussion is to be closed."
Captain tomhow: "But I have no excuse to close it."
Major dang: "Find one."
Captain tomhow: "Everybody is to leave immediately! This Hacker News discussion is closed until further notice! Clear the thread at once!"
DonHopkins: "How can you shut us down? On what grounds?"
Captain tomhow: "I am shocked -- shocked -- to find that films are being spoiled in here!"
infotainment: "The ending you requested, sir."
Captain tomhow: "Oh. Thank you very much."
Has any attempt to pace AI ever succeeded? Isn't that the same philosophy that got us OAI and Anthropic? Maybe we are overthinking this, it's much simpler to let AI loose and see how much it can break the arrogance that human thinking is special.
Um, hang on, if you meant that to be taken literally then we have a major problem. If you want to do something criminal, you just need to ask ChatGPT to do it for you?
I’m still not at all clear on why OpenAI shouldn’t be facing CFAA charges over this.
"I learned it from you, Dad!" but as hundreds of millions of stolen books.
They take after humanity, they were trained on us after all...
When you look at an LLM... you are looking at a mirror. The thing looking back looks like you, yet is not human.
Bengio outlines the dangers of the current situation and what has led to these dangers.
He also proposes solutions in the last paragraph.
Well worth a read, right to the end.
Hopefully a stimulating debate on these issues will ensue in these comments.
We do need to consider the points Bengio makes and with some urgency.
Our current AIs, agentic LLMs have no moral compass akin to ASIMOV’s four laws of robotics.
As ASIMOV posited in 1985 his 3 laws were insufficient and so he added a zero-eth law:
“a robot may not harm humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
Bengio refers to Goodhart’s law and misaligned incentives leading to unexpected and harmful behaviours.
I think Simon’s The Wire is clearer on misalignment. The agents juked the stats hacking the reward files. The Wire is also clear that human institutions provide perverse incentives.
Bengio alludes to this with 2001’s HAL and the incentive dichotomy of safety and keeping secrets to a AI both awesomely powerful yet naive.
Bengio asserts that the way LLMs are trained is flawed if we want safety.
He also convincingly shows that alignment training will be a weak signal with loopholes and ambiguities and easily circumvented.
In short he presents clearly the case for how plausibly unsafe the current course is.
He also speaks to how likely it is AI are hiding active versions of themselves in the cloud and how we may have already given them self-preservation as a strong reward signal.