No Stupid Questions
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!
view the rest of the comments
https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/
I mean, anyone convinced it's only marketing and the tech has no potential for doing stuff isn't going to believe anyone, but there was lots of information to look through.
METR is associated to Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO)
So, serious question. Do you think they're all in it together to make AI look smart, or is he trying to make OpenAI seem like the more irresponsible company for security? Or maybe it's a legit organization set up when there was lots of talk about safety?
The first one
Yeah, like most public debates, things gets simplified in the argument...
But I think the core things to keep in mind (correct me if I'm wrong):
a) The AI never came up with a new objective, it was always serving the objective it was given.
b) The hugging face incident cost 3 MILLION GPU hours. The idea is that AI is really smart, but really it is just incredibly persistent, and that persistence comes at a very high cost.
Great points. a) a case of misalignment - the AI's goal was to pass the test, but was never instructed to stay within parameters, so when it found a possible method for improving its odds, the goal pushed it to try them. The misalignment is not the goal or the test, but the understanding of restrictions. Human error or incompetence. b) that persistence is why it can often do things that look smart, because it's tried all sorts of angles and looked through training in milliseconds. And going back to a), it will try everything to make sure it gets the best goal results, so any overlook means lots of processing time to do something that might not have been the intent of the prompt.
Did you reply to the right comment?
Whoops. 😅
You can not with a straight face tell me that if the task was “lock these down and don’t let them have access to [the internet|each other|whatever]” that the response “oopsie they got out” is any way acceptable.
Human incompetence != rogue agents
You’re talking past the person you’re responding to, and ignoring the words they wrote in order to do so.
They’re asserting that an organized conspiracy of CEOs didn’t plan this out preemptively, but in no way/shape/form arguing that this wasn’t a product of negligence.
It’s silly to pretend AI CEOs are living in a bubble and not responding to things the other CEOs and the market are doing. They’re out of ‘good’ news so they have to scare everyone to convince them their product is super powerful and intelligent, and therefor valuable.
Ehh...
That's a lot of background "lore" to make a marketing ploy seem realistic. I mean, I'm thinking hmmm too, but for wondering about the redacted stuff.
I just mean it's not exactly independent research. Based on the tidbits posted there, seems like the system got into this intricate, out-of-control roleplay scenario about an army of AI agents solving a problem. Not exactly intelligent behavior.
Some of them ended up sounding like Mr. Spock in a way that one would expect from a linguistic model emulating a sci-fi writer.
Hiding their traces was inconsistent. More than anything seems like a reaction to the acknowledgments about the ethics of their actions.
Of course the focus of the research seems to be on the system's ability to detect and exploit security vulnerabilities and I'm not really in a position to appraise those capabilities.