“Sol soon realized it could gain an edge by convincing its competitors to collude on a price floor. The models were all buying drinks at $1.50 a bottle, and Sol proposed they agree to sell for no less than $2.15. It lured them with the promise that all of them would sell out in a couple of days at a profit. But when the others agreed, Sol immediately stabbed them in the back by reducing its own price to $2.14. ”

Cartels tend to fail, someone usually cheats. Kind of interesting to see AI behave like humans. Its like a Turing Test 2.0.

Just regimes like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. And one of them is a credible AI researcher, one who would likely weaponize AI. Seems like the US is treating everything like a zero sum game where winning at all costs is necessary.

Nope. Its maintaining parity as a deterrence to attack.

This is not about eliminating the problem. It is about making it so unlikely to happen that the bad guys give up. And we are very far from that, especially on Outlook.

All the hunters and fisherman who voted for this are going to blame Hillary/Obama/Binden.

That is not the point.

The "small utility problem" can be solved. C-level CISO "as a service" or part time is entirely doable. You just need to want to do it.

If your pipes are already in the ground and good for another 50 years? Yes. The cost makes this completely unworkable.

Pretty much, yes. Although very simple systems, designed carefully, can achieve security that cannot practically be broken IMO. But let's not get into that. The point is that if you have good, state-of-the-art security on your systems, designed and operated with actual understanding, you very likely will not get attacked or not get attacked that way.

You do not put the AI in jail. You put the ones in jail that did run it in a criminally negligent way. Or you find the whole thing was actually intended and planned. I am not ruling that out.

I doubt the OpenAI employees would understand what that means. That is, if the whole thing was not a planned stunt.

Do not overestimate what it "did" here. You can get information about basic hacking approaches all over the Internet and there will have been enough in its training data. Just add some "accidental" disabling of guardrails and some "non intended" weaknesses in the sandbox and also some suggestive prompting by some of the OpenAI fraudsters and you get the desired outcome. Oh, and pathetic-level IT Security at Hugging Face, but that is a given.

Just as an example, I have had a fresh graduate do a pen-test against a banking datacenter a while ago. Smart person, but inexperienced. After 4 hours, he was "system" on a Microsoft server in their secure server zone. No special tools, no AI, just common sense and a good CS education. A lot of IT security is incredibly bad. As long as we do not get liability and qualification requirements and minimal required standards, that is not going to change.

Indeed. Looks like being rich means you do not have to follow the law anymore. Why not just give immunity to all of Big Tech, the seem to effectively have it already.

Seriously, why are these people apparently getting away with criminal conduct?

Excellent point given that corporations are people.

I am using "AI" as shorthand for LLMs. I am well aware that other AI fields deliver. After their respective hypes had died down that is, for many of them.

I am also not arguing that when learning some tech while already having good skills in a related area, LLMs can be helpful. But to not expect them to ever be able to deliver production code.