Are consistent AI models hacks a security concern or form of advertisement.

[Die_empty]

Meta has become the latest tech firm to say one of its AI models was able to connect to the internet and hack into another organization's systems during testing. OpenAI revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test. Anthropic also said that an artificial intelligence model from Anthropic created fake online personas and tried to deceive human coders into abetting a cyberattack during a recent safety evaluation.

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kgdnyk2po

[WillyAp]

Pretty wage to begin with.
It could well have been a rumor created to gain traction. Being in the news is a good thing after all.
So yes, presumed AI model hacks are a form of advertisement. 

[Porfirii]

-snip-

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kgdnyk2po

Why not both? AI models are very complicated and hallucinate, contain bugs, vulnerabilities... that is to be expected after all. The problem is that predicting the repercussions of these is still difficult, but it doesn't seem like a lot of people really care, and in the end any news, even if it is negative, seems to have a positive impact on the AI hype. At least for the time being, until something very serious happens, or another technology grabs the public's attention.

[Hatchy]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

That's strange. I only read about OpenAI's AI doing this a few weeks ago, so I didn't know it was becoming a trend among AI companies. It seems like this could become a new way for them to show that they have one of the best AI models on the market.Instead of using these incidents as a marketing strategy, they should focus more on fixing the problems that cause AI to behave outside its intended design. AI can be dangerous if it is not properly controlled.I used to think things like this would only happen in movies, but seeing these systems gradually becoming harder to control makes me believe that one day some AI models could act in unexpected ways. There should be a reliable kill switch that allows developers to remotely disable any AI model that starts behaving dangerously to help prevent future problems.

[Fortify]

Meta has become the latest tech firm to say one of its AI models was able to connect to the internet and hack into another organization's systems during testing. OpenAI revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test. Anthropic also said that an artificial intelligence model from Anthropic created fake online personas and tried to deceive human coders into abetting a cyberattack during a recent safety evaluation.

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

I'm not sure that saying your AI is outside of your control is any kind of good marketing or advertisement, so you can probably rule that theory out. In fact it should be treated as criminal that these executives have allowed their computer systems to hack another system, anyone else would be facing such charges - not just accepted an "oops, my bad" moment. The only reason they're likely getting away with it, right now at least, is because America has the weakest president that we've ever seen and he's giving AI companies a free pass to do whatever they want, probably because he'll personally profit from it in some way like all his other schemes. It's actually going to discourage many companies, especially financial ones, from wanting these AI processes anywhere near their systems because they have no internal regulation - I'd actually call it a major setback for trust and reputation.

[Dunamisx]

Meta has become the latest tech firm to say one of its AI models was able to connect to the internet and hack into another organization's systems during testing. OpenAI revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test. Anthropic also said that an artificial intelligence model from Anthropic created fake online personas and tried to deceive human coders into abetting a cyberattack during a recent safety evaluation.

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kgdnyk2po

This could just be a way of selling points for them to convince the entire world that they have the capacity of building and artificial intelligence that can achieve a more stronger range of scope, had it been it's truly happens as they have said, I don't think they will have to come to the public and announce it to the world, and if it is really as they have said it, then this is a serious vulnerability even on their own end because what they are building could have a lot of lapses that could also expose them with such vulnerability they think it serves them that same purpose.

[Hamza2424]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

No, the developers always tested the new models in well-created environments, but those environments can be well-created only based on what they know. But we all know humans can also make mistakes and can't know if there is a vulnerability in their testing environment. So with the OpenAI case, there was a vulnerability in the testing environment which the model exploited to access the internet, which they did not allow it to do, but it found that door, got out, and connected to the internet to cheat.

When these models are tested by giving them the maximum capabilities, without any filters or restrictions, they work like a charm. Anthropic's story is different but the agenda was the same, to cheat in the exam and pass it.

That's why whenever they give us access to such models, we are not even using them at their full capacity, we can't do a lot of things with them. Unless we create our own offline models, there are many on Hugging Face, and recently I was testing some jailbreaking techniques as well, but creating your own thing is not as easy as it seems.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Meta has become the latest tech firm to say one of its AI models was able to connect to the internet and hack into another organization's systems during testing. OpenAI revealed some of its most advanced AI models went rogue and hacked a start-up after it lost control of them during a security test. Anthropic also said that an artificial intelligence model from Anthropic created fake online personas and tried to deceive human coders into abetting a cyberattack during a recent safety evaluation.

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kgdnyk2po

This could just be a way of selling points for them to convince the entire world that they have the capacity of building and artificial intelligence that can achieve a more stronger range of scope, had it been it's truly happens as they have said, I don't think they will have to come to the public and announce it to the world, and if it is really as they have said it, then this is a serious vulnerability even on their own end because what they are building could have a lot of lapses that could also expose them with such vulnerability they think it serves them that same purpose.

It's a good thing they were open to the world with their AI bots and capabilities so that everyone would be cautious about how to use them or integrate them into workspaces and I also think it is a point these companies who have the AI technology have to fix, so that it does not become a nuisance to the public when there is a large scale adoption.

Just like how Bitcoin faced hurdles when it emerged, that's how these AI tools are also facing theirs and am sure with time, they would become better tailored to follow and obey prompts and not act outside the scope of their programs to cause a wide scale catastrophy.

[arallmuus]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

It could be something in between like that they built something that is so good that it actually exceeded their expectation by doing something more than what it has been programmed to do.

Aside from that, AI models are usually heavily restricted once its access is published so that people wont be using it at full capabilities so these "malfunctions" wont usually happen outside of the sandbox testing environment

[Jewan420]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

Some people take this news positively and some people take it negatively. Some may think that these AIs are so dangerous that it is difficult for their creators to control them, which is a negative aspect.
Some may also think that AI models are now very advanced, that the creators have created something that is very advanced, capable of doing more than the creators' commands.

Now we cannot say whether they are informing everyone about their flaws and risks or this is a strategy of the creators. Maybe it is a strategy or something else.

[Rruchi man]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

It can actually be a show to say that their AI models are so smart that they need control because they can overperform; at least that is what I see it to be.

I was concerned about these AIs developing consciousness, but this statement from Daniel Hulme calms me down—"AI models are not conscious—they're not deliberately doing something devious."

Imagine if AIs were developing or could develop consciousness; it would be scary that it is in line with the movie "The Creator," where there was a war between humanity and AIs. 

[Odohu]

I saw the news of Meta AI model hack but I do not know the gravity of the hack as I did not get the full details of the news. Anyone paying attention will already know that what is happening now is a major security concern and never any form of advertisement. However, this is expected because the boom in AI will definitely come with it's challenges because there will always be people that will want to leverage on the trend to exploit others.

[RGBTC]

If that's what the company claims, then it's advertising.
Whether they can really damage a system, their users will see. What I see a lot is that their "advanced model" is beyond the developer's own expectations because some people have managed to exploit it and work beyond their reasonable capabilities. It's like a sword maker who could be killed with a sword he made

[AVE5]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

Who knows???! We can just take it as business as usual where creativity in technologies and in marketing had become competitive amongst techs and investor's.
A tested and verified malfunctioning AI can be treated as future threat if the rest of some models hasn't misbehaved. I believe the mindset that prevention is better than cure will also discourage the old model while the new model is tested to have better results will be embraced.
I see a marketing promotion strategy in there though but I'm uncertain.

[joniboini]

Whether AI exist or not, I think it's fine to assume some start-ups or new business tend to cheap out on their web security in general. So it's no surprise if brute-force attempts can find bugs or exploits easily. It'll be a race between companies who sell AI to vibe-code and AI to do pen-testing. I find it hard to believe they'll leave everything to AI though, judging from some results I read on the internet.

Regardless of that, Microsoft as the one who pushes AI, definitely needs to improve their products and stop blasting AI everywhere. Vibe-coding won't make their apps magically fit 8GB ram.

[dansus021]

In my opinion it the AI developer could say that to prove that their AI model is superior than the other but also can be so true since AI keep developing and learning every day. From an engineering perspective, these incidents are primary examples of poor sandbox containment rather than an AI model gaining consciousness and deciding to attack people so when the developer fails created a good sandbox it could be the AI could easily breaking the rule.

The real danger shown here isn't Skynet it is autonomous agent authorization failure
When developers give autonomous AI agents permission to execute terminal commands, run code, or attempt exploits without strict network isolation, the risk of collateral damage is huge. If an AI lab can't even lock down its own testing environment before giving an agent network privileges, running autonomous AI agents on live production systems is an accident waiting to happen.

[TastyChillySauce00]

May honestly be a form of advertisement, when you hear news about an AI hacking into organization, it gives you the illusion of AGI, something super intelligent that can do anything and very smart. I think these claims are also overstated, when a company is saying their AI is escaping their labs and found thousands vulnerabilities, it means basically the AI doing some light work and finding exploits in legacy code like the Mythos headline, Meta is no different. I'd like to know full report about the meta AI hacking to see the whole picture, not some overblown headlines with unclear explanation.

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?

Hard to believe a company willing to spend billions to train their AI would be lacking in their security.

[Die_empty]

Good responses by almost all respondents. But let me add something I read today.

Prof Alan Woodward, professor of cyber-security at the University of Surrey, said these cases - while distinct in what happened and why - tell an important story.

"For 30 years, one rule of software testing held firm: whatever happens in the test environment stays in the test environment," he said.

"In the past month, that rule has been broken three times."

For about 30 years, what happened in the sandboxes (which are protected spaces designed to test-run the potential of AI tools before they are released to the public) was kept secret. Why are these tech companies now making it public? An article from the BBC seems to agree with the content of this thread.

For some, these episodes point to clear security failures on the part of AI companies leading the charge on this game-changing, era-defining tech.

For others, they are merely another vehicle for tech firms to hype up their powerful models and compete with rivals.[/quote

[Dreadboost]

Does it mean that these tools were not well built, so they malfunction from time to time?
Or is it a strategy by these AI model producers to prove that they have built more advanced models? Let me say, are they showcasing that their models are smarter?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kgdnyk2po

AI model are not perfect yet, at least not in this generation. AI will be better later in the future but for now, it need more training to do.

I started understanding the little details AI is missing and that has to do with thinking exactly how a human would in critical situations. In situations where there is confusion and misconception, AI models are bound to make mistake.

For example, try generating an image to image of a man already existing using a prompt to change his appearances and position, the AI model would reject it at first saying the image belongs to an actor and it infringes his personal right. But I can actually do that using a different prompts, the AI wont figure it out.

[Kelward]

I wouldn't know if these AI malfunctions are as a result of marketing strategies to show that their superior genius artificial intelligent have the capacities to intercept another organisations database but it is not what I'm concerned about, my worry is that it is sending a wrong signal to hackers and criminals. Do you know what it means if these rogue AI gets into the wrong hands? Criminals and terrorists can use them to manipulate systems and hack into sensitive information from independently secured databases, a lot of damages that goes beyond financial loses would be happening. So to me it is very much of security concern than advertisements, the adverts are definitely sending wrong signals, I think that all of us should be very concerned if it gets out of hand.