That was a bit snarky and could lead to an irrelevant technical debate.

I should point out that, most importantly, when OpenAI claims that they air gapped these systems in any way (including just isolating them as a VM with no network device attached), I DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. They have done nothing to suggest that they are being honest about the situation. They only admitted fault when they got caught and then only in such ways that would allow them to weasel out of any legal liability.

It does not matter if an AI system can escape an air gapped system because we have no reason to believe that is what actually happened.

You and I clearly have a different definition of air gapped.

Programs do not just randomly do this. The guys at OpenAI knew the capabilities of the software, wrote its instructions, and intentionally ran the program.

They are only claiming these things are rogue because they got caught and they see this absurd claim as a way to avoid liability.

If I wrote a worm, tested it on my local network despite knowing that by design it could escape that local network and cause real damage, and then it did exactly that, no prosecutor, judge, or jury will let me off the hook when I claim I only intended to test it on the local network.

I would love to see the AGENTS.md for this thing. . .

That is bullshit. You expect me to believe someone on slashdot has multiple computers? What type of nerd site do you think this is?

The department will ensure that only approved donors are allowed to provide AI services.

If you are looking for a year of the Linux desktop, KDE is probably your best bet. Personally, I wish the macOS-style dock was the default, but it is easy enough to add and works well.

In my experience KDE works fine with Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, and Arch. I am sure that list could be extended quite a bit, but that gives you plenty of options.

That reply was so stupid I am not even going to point out why. Try again. Read my original post and try to understand what I wrote. Just try to apply basic logic.

Your response was so fallacious you might as well have written 2 plus 2 equals five.

I am embarrassed for you.

Would those same insurance companies even cover a wreck that happened if the driver hopped in the back seat? That is what we are talking about, not a driver using autonomous features that they can instantly override at any time.

To be fair, normal users probably will never see this press release. This is more for the ./ crowd and similar audiences.

Think of the AIs like employees. If you tell an employee to break the law and they do it, you have both broken the law. If an employee goes rogue and breaks the law in violation of company policy, only the employee broke the law.

The fact of the matter is that they programmed the agents and hooked them up to LLMs they designed, and all of this started with a PROMPT.

I cannot believe for a second that the design of the agent (remember, and agent is just a program that interfaces with an LLM) would do these things if it were not programmed to do so, given particular prompts. I suspect if we were able to see the prompts, the agent tools, the agent instructions, etc. these hacks would not seem rogue at all.

Right now OpenAI is trying to argue that they did not kill someone, the gun they designed and built killed someone and it aimed and pulled the trigger by itself. They want to convince us that the gun had AGENCY, because otherwise actual people are liable for these crimes. Crimes that if you or I committed, we would go to prison for.

These truly are uncharted territories so any overconfident claims about the legal status of LLM-generated anything should be viewed skeptically. Rarely is existing law well equipped to deal with new innovations, so it is doubtful that we will have any answers until new laws are written.

My bet would be that the tech oligarchs will write those laws, so they will probably seem contradictory in that they allow tech oligarchs to do whatever they want with data while placing onerous restrictions on end users.

You give these morons way too much credit. While you correctly detailed the effects of the tariffs, none of it was planned. They all just latched on to the idea of tariffs for different reasons (Navarro because he actually believes it is sound economic policy, Trump because the power excites him) but these idiots had no foresight into what would actually happen.

Never mistake something working out for the Trump administration as competence. If these idiots were competent, things would be much worse.

I think the hack really happened. I do not think it was some rogue AI. I do expect that the next time OpenAI gets caught hacking they will have their rogue AI excuse locked and loaded.

If you look at this and the recent case with Apple (or even the case where they unsuccessfully tried to remove Altman) , it is clear that OpenAI views the law as a challenge to work around, not rules to follow. It is very Microsoft of them.

Why do you go with option 3? Option 2 sounds the most plausible to me.

Option 3 sounds like: Well, officer, I was walking behind my wife carrying this bowling ball and we were at the top of the stairs when I tripped over my untied shoelace, which pushed her down the stairs and she was severely injured and would have survived if not for the bowling ball, which I dropped when I tripped and it bounced down the stairs and crushed her head.