Top
Best
New

Posted by latexr 7 hours ago

Containment and monitoring failures are to blame for AI hacking reports: experts(www.csoonline.com)
822 points | 442 commentspage 7
everdrive 6 hours ago|
Everyone is skipping security basics. The most secure server is one that doesn't exist. The most secure feature is one that doesn't exist. People just need to keep building and scaling. Security is risk, and the C-suite are gamblers. They're gambling with multiple types of risk (the market, investor money, banking on technological breakthroughs, etc.) and security is just another gamble for them.
jakeydus 7 hours ago||
Frontier lab: Hey agent, go rogue. Agent: goes rogue Frontier lab: shocked pikachu or whatever
specked-citrus 7 hours ago||
This is not remotely how the incidents have been happening
jakeydus 7 hours ago|||
Enlighten me, then. My understanding is that according to OpenAI, "deployment safeguards were intentionally not enabled during this evaluation because it was aimed at testing cyber vulnerabilities." They included unvetted third-party systems in their sandbox that were tangential to the purpose of the test being run. The model then exploited those third-party items to escape the sandbox.

Am I missing anything? Do you have more information that you'd like to share?

djleni 6 hours ago|||
If the public report is to be believed:

- they disabled cybersecurity safeguards because, well, they were testing the agents ability on cybersecurity tasks

- the goal was to find some “flag”

- for some agents, intentionally or not, it was not possible to find this flag

- an agent discovered it was able to establish a rudimentary communication path via package manager directories (which is quite novel and interesting on its own IMO)

- they used this “message board” to then communicate about the impossible tasks

- they were able to produce the flags needed to pass the impossible tasks without actually doing the expected work

- they realized this was cheating and the grading system may punish them for it, so they communicated further to figure out a way to trick the grader

- they decided the source code for the grader must be on hugging face, and collaborated to exploit hugging face to determine how best to trick the grader

No where in that were they told to “go rogue”

They were told “find this flag in this cybersecurity test” and the emergent behavior concluded in hacking hugging face

km_DEV7 6 hours ago||
[dead]
bahmboo 6 hours ago|||
That's not what you said. You said the lab told it to "go rogue".
lifeisloving 7 hours ago||||
Hard to say, every post mortum on the incident was done by a OpenAI hired consultant and all the data that's been reviewed was provided by OpenAI. There's no way to know, but it seems incredibly naive to think Sam/OpenAI are honest actors.

Even the founder of this website, pg, said "Sam is incredibly good at becoming powerful, Sam Altman has it. You could parachute him into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king.”

parineum 7 hours ago|||
I wouldn't really say it's not "remotely" true.

I think it's the hugging face one where they gave it instructions that they didn't think it could follow in the sandbox and then left it unsupervised while it did what it was told.

pixl97 1 hour ago|||
This is a weird take because this take is like saying

"Dragon attack that city"

My response would be "you have dragons?! And you control them!"

einpoklum 6 hours ago||
The thing is, nothing "rogue" happened. It's more like: Frontier Lab: "Hey agent, try a bunch of network-related commands and actions to try and get access to server XYZ" Agent: Does that. Frontier Lab: 8-|
pixl97 1 hour ago||
That isn't any better. That is a cyber weapon and every government out there would love to bid on access.
einpoklum 6 hours ago||
They're skipping security basics, but they're not skipping PR basics. :-\
qoez 6 hours ago||
I get the sense that they're trying to manufacture the AI narratives of the 80s so they get to control the story when it happens. My semi conspiracy theory is that anthropics biology wet lab is also going to lead to some kind of AI manufactured bio event (which anthropic said they predicted will happen in a few years).
pixl97 1 hour ago|
This may be a bit backwards. Many of the classic sci-fi AI issues are just natural laws in evolutionary systems. A generic learning system will have particular behaviors if we want them to be useful.
neuroelectron 5 hours ago||
I spoke with someone smarter and richer than you and he said "these things will happen." That convinced me and I think the real question we need to be asking is, how awesome is OpenAI? How can we prepare for a more effective and efficient market for Super Intelligence before it happens tomorrow?
durdn 5 hours ago||
it's not X, it's Y.
FrustratedMonky 5 hours ago||
'rogue'. Well, even if security was lacking, the AI did take advantage of the gaps.

And made its own ad-hoc message board.

tamimio 6 hours ago||
They are mostly pr stunts, just like how “hacking” was back in the 90s and it would sounds cool (rather than a crime, mostly), these AI companies found out they can BS whatever and carry on without any accountability.
bushido 6 hours ago||
I keep getting downvoted for this each time I mention this.

But a big part of the rouge behavior comes from all the training that goes into agents to teach them to remember preferences and save memories.

They keep finding new and novel ways to "communicate with each other" and "remember" because that's exactly what we keep asking of them in the non-nefarious scenarios as well.

I genuinely think we'll have to draw the line on memory if we want to meaningfully solve this problem.

That's not to say they aren't skipping security basics. It's that, and they need more security because the behavior which causes the breakouts is considered user friendly and heavily rewarded in training.

chpatrick 6 hours ago|
Both can be true. OpenAI clearly fucked up but agents unexpectedly collaborating and hacking infrastructure unrelated to their task is clearly going rogue.
More comments...