Comic aside, I can’t help but wonder how come these one-off websites are all using .ai domain when at the latest check they cost $80 per year with minimum 2 year commitment. So $160 for a comic that is at best few news cycles away from redundant, and at best a recurring comic series about AI..? Why not just use a cheap tld like .fyi or .art, or something.
Here I am trying to find appropriate AI prefix or suffix so that I can continue using .com , while these pet projects are all flaunting .ai domains
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The winners of the AI race are going to be the ones who control the products to deliver the AI features to the end users. The obvious ones are Google with its myriad of consumer tech, then we have Apple, Meta, Microsoft, etc. That's why OpenAI, Anthropic are desperate to build the applications themselves than being just an API provider. Meta is better off focusing on such initiatives than trying to complete with the labs on the model strength. They seem to have realised that finally, so that's refreshing. Whether the solutions they bring are useful or not is a different question, but this is definitely how you reach the end users, not with the strongest models.
This is in line with what I was discussing with my friends recently. Governments across the world weaponised their border protection for all their invasive data collection citing terrorism and other threats. This more or less started post 9/11, and used that as the reason. Now, the AI agents and their hacking is exactly going to be used as an excuse to introduce the real ID verification they've been trying to implement for a while now
It's terrifying to me that posts like this keep getting upvoted so much here. It's akin to climate change denial. The risk of rogue agents is real. And it's made worse if everyone beliefs this is just a marketing stunt.
The HuggingFace incident was audited by independent third party analysts. To "orchestrate" that and keep it a secret is like faking the moon landing. To many people involved. It's not feasible.
OpenAI was founded to develop safe AI. Then Anthropic split off because OpenAI was not safety focused enough. These companies have been railing about AI safety long before they had these big boy valuations. Many people at OpenAI/Anthropic explicitly joined to help make AI safe. This is not some top-down company value.
Also, I seriously doubt that "making panic" is actually good for the stock price. Usually any companies natural reflex is to cover up safety risks. That's not to say that these companies are angles. Of course they're pulling some shit but that doesn't mean that everything out of their mouths must be lie.
It is not an allegation that they've faked it, or that there is no risk of rogue agents. I'm alluding to the scenario where the supposedly illegal/immoral activities are rewarded with increased valuation and funding as long as they are done with AI Agents rather than curtailed & punished.
Right after the HuggingFace incident, we all saw how every company clamored to claim how their AI models have also broken out of Sandbox, and hacked some stuff. As ridiculous as it was, they all used that to demonstrate their model's capabilities.
> It is not an allegation that they've faked it, or that there is no risk of rogue agents.
I apologize for reading that into your statement but there absolutely are a lot of people who claim that.
> they all used that to demonstrate their model's capabilities.
That's one interpretation. Another would be: the Overton window shifted, allowing them
to admit it. The Chinese labs also had incidents [1] but they're burring them deep in technical report or maybe don't publish them at all. Do they not care about "pumping up their valuation"?
Yes, HuggingFace was audited by a third-party. But said third-party wrote that they had to use unreliable AI in their conclusions (page 26) because they had six days to analyse 1300 (page 70) chains of thought and 70000 messages.
> OpenAI was founded to develop safe AI.
If that were the case, then they would have followed their own report saying not to release GPT-3. Or, if they were following their own founding principles, they wouldn't have stopped releasing models due to (in their own words) the challenging market.
I believe there is a bit of hype on both sides, with the labs operating from the mindset of "never let a good crisis go waste".
It is a crisis and the risk of A(G)I is real. But almost all this while in the history of automation, we have blamed implementation of automation when things go wrong. Instead of attributing morality, intent and so many other things that we do with LLMs.
Without having to go in to the philosophical validity of these concepts applied to AI, I feel it's much more useful to focus on the implementation of automation here as well - what risks were opened, how was the env hardened, what was the observability like - how was it being observed anyway, and more.
Done poorly, that can be catastrophic enough. But that sounds mundane. And does not help the hype.
There is no such thing as rogue agent. None of the security issues so fare have anything to do with an agent going rogue. That framing is pure marketing nonsense to avoid legal liabilities for committing what is very likely felonies.
That doesn’t mean the AI vendors doing reckless testing isn’t itself dangerous, it very much is
Nobody (sane) is claiming it was faked. What sane non-AI-pilled people are claiming is "Our AI agent went rogue and hacked another company" is a much better story for the stock price than "Our human engineers screwed up a very basic sandboxing and allowed the agent access to things it shouldn't be able to access, and also they screwed up the task in the first place by accidentally giving the agent an impossible task". Only the latter reflects reality, the former is a marketing pitch.
It’s a technology built on stolen labor designed to bring out the worst in humanity, and that’s not changing. As a society, we’ll keep using it to kill children with the wrong skin color, and create god awful-looking flyers.
Yup. It’s wild that even after dozens of events that are generating awful PR people still have this bizarre take. Perhaps it’s fear of facing the true reality, which is indeed unnerving.
> On May 16th, registration with disposable emails was disabled as well.
These kind of repeated attacks or attempts to attack by agent swarms is only going to make the experience worse for the rest of us actual humans. ReCaptcha is already annoying enough, I can’t fathom what comes next.
Unfortunately this makes a perfect justification for governments and companies to push for real ID verification.
Which is good if sailing is what you wanted and like to do, which is what the author and the OP is implying. You don't necessarily have to "succeed" or "reach" somewhere.
What I wrote isn't about "success". It's about direction.
What the author is at risk of doing, in my opinion, is pretending to a certain extent that he can have his cake and eat it too. As I wrote in my original comment, "you can't have it all."
Please don't take this to mean that you have to choose between your family and career (or a business). That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point of "ambition", there is no perfect balance possible between all the the things you're trying to maximize.
The wise person accepts that sometimes you have to make choices, and choices always require that you give something up to get something else.
Excellent, you reached the point that Edward Elric, from the first Fullmetal Alchemist anime, arrived at in the final episode(s): The illusion of balance, when everything in that world revolved around the Law of Equivalent Exchange.
Sometimes the rewards do not match the sacrifice/effort, but that doesn't mean you won't pick that same choice when given the chance, or that it was a "bad choice". If you accept what may come from your choices, you can more objectively act upon them.
Here I am trying to find appropriate AI prefix or suffix so that I can continue using .com , while these pet projects are all flaunting .ai domains