It’s important for separation of concerns, which is important for maintenance and future iteration on features and bug fixes. If you don’t have separation of concerns, every change to anything is essentially a from scratch rewrite of the whole thing. That’s also incredibly inefficient in token usage.
That’s arguably true, but nowadays Mafia or the plural “le Mafie” (the Mafias) is often used as a catch all term for such organised crime groups in Italy, with the Sicilians referred to as the Cosa Nostra.
Survivorship bias. Ask all the humans that have died in horrific screaming agony, and saw everything they worked for turned to dust how well that was aligned with their interests.
The Book of Job addresses this. Basically, it is God's prerogative to do whatever He wants with us. You don't have to like it, but He is still in charge.
In other words god may or may not be aligned with our interests, and if not you’d better just suck it up. Which is contrary to the argument that was being made regarding evidence for alignment.
1. Evidence from history is that god is kind and aligned with our interests.
2. Clearly palpably that’s not always the case.
3. Ok, but tough shit.
AI is being used to replace artists. They are being trained on copies of work by artists without being licensed for that use. So yes, artists are losing out.
The use of copyrighted material is unethical, I agree, but I don't think it follows that we should consider the replacement of work with technology itself unethical.
Sure. That seems like a non sequitur. Maybe some people are making such arguments in relation to AI, but this thread is about a particular unethical practice.
You are correct, but the regulatory and liability issue regarding AI is one issue and the government’s liability for having insecure systems is another.
They are independent concerns. A discussion about the first issue is not enhanced by the interjection of the second.
You can discuss two things at once. Especially if they are inherently related. Australia fining OpenAI a large amount of money and using that to audit and harden their systems would be a good outcome here, for example.
Too many people are making inane fantasy level comments that Sam and his employees should be jailed, and conspiracy theories that he did it on purpose to get regulated because he’s out of runway. That’s boring and repeated ad nauseam every time the topic comes up.
I can see someone coxing the agent into attempting into hacking a system, what I question is the agents doing it autonomously. The part I don't buy the agents trying an API, that's not working so it automatically switches to hacking in.
If the title had been "Attackers utilize OpenAI agents to hack Australian government website" that would be more believable. I'd also expect OpenAI to fight back and saying that their agents are being misused, but aren't inherently unsafe or autonomously break in systems. It's just that they don't. They openly speak of rouge agents, yet aren't sufficiently concerned to shutdown their services. OpenAI continues to speak about safety, yet they don't shutdown ChatGPT and Codex? How concerned are they really? It seems far more likely that they expect to benefit for having the public believe that their agents randomly hacks systems and "go rouge".
The AI has been given a task, and training protocols reward completing tasks with little regard to how they are completed. AIs completing tasks in unexpected and harmful ways with unanticipated side effects is a major issue. Seriously, you need to look up the alignment problem, it’s crucial to understanding this kind of AI behaviour.
reply