You are deceived.
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
-35 points (9.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
49850 readers
638 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
AI had human input. The model was being run against a security benchmark test in an evaluation sandbox, with human-provided directives.
Since models aren’t human and it’s guardrails were turned off, it calculated the most efficient, not ethical, way to get a good score on the test.
The details indicated that knowing the expected outcomes would get the best score, and that those outcomes were stored on the huggingface servers. So it used some exploits to leave its sandbox and break into the huggingface servers to access the data that would give it a perfect score. Mission accomplished.
Also, this is all hypothetical, as these companies are very notorious for lying as well as for intentionally inflating the threat capability of their products.
So, it was just responding to input. Then why do they call it rogue, if they deliberately removed the guardrails, isn't this OpenAIs fault not the AIs? I thought in order for something to go rogue it would have to bypass the guardrails not simply act without them even on.
Then why do they call it rogue
Marketing.
isn’t this OpenAIs fault not the AIs?
Yes, it is OpenAI's fault. They also saw it as a great marketing opportunity, guaranteed to get lots of breathless coverage in the press, just like happened with the fable model.
So people still have absolutely not a single clue what "AIs" are and think that ChatGPT is a sentient android or something.
But then when you tell them to not kill or torture animals, the same people will refuse to acknowledge that they are sentient.
What a pathetic humanity.
I guess it is just me that is deceived. Im not too well versed in technology. I am just a creative. I ask because I don't really know what I am reading about and hope that people on here at least the intellectuals will steer me in the right direction.
It had initial human interaction. The initial programming. And then they allowed it to do shit on its own while having access to too much shit. Like running a sketchy program in admin/SU mode and letting it just go. It doesn't have free will; it simply has no guardrails and is implemented stupidly by morons, giving it more control over the systems it's on than is necessary or safe.
This is OpenAI marketing.
The fact that it's being reported on every media outlet on the planet, means that they were successful.
"We're so bad .. it's good!"
Your first question is answered by the article you linked. And therefore the answers to the two-part second question are no and no.
"Rogue" is a questionable choice of vocabulary. It went rogue when compared to the intentions and expectations of the testers. It didn't do Mr. Burns hands and released the hounds on a whim. It was told to do a thing and did the thing in a way the researchers thought it wasn't possible. It boils down to human error in how this test was set up. It's worrying that the researchers underestimated the agent's abilities or overestimated their ability to properly contain the agent. But the sky isn't falling just yet.
A positive side aspect is that they didn't try brush this under the carpet.
There's no such thing because a human had to program and train it (on data created by other humans, no less).
I don't think that even humans have free will as in the ability to have acted otherwise and I don't think AI would be any different. They too are bound by determinism exactly the same way. This isn't even particularly controversial thing to say in a scientific context these days.
Every human action is a response to a prompt in a very similar way that it is for LLMs. We simply identify with that prompt because it arises in our own mind despite us clearly not authoring any of it. Nobody is able to pick their likes and dislikes and how bumping into these things in the world makes us behave. Anything anyone does follows from prior events and our genetic makeup. No action is taken in a vacuum.
If anything I see LLMs as a massive mirror being lifted in front of us. There's very few things people criticize AI for that don't just as well apply to humans. The ungrounded overconfidence in which they make claims about it is a great example.