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

[Die_empty]

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.

You have a strong argument here about the security concerns these advertisements would cause the industry. The question is whether it seems like these companies don't care about the consequences because this kind of advert is needed currently. Maybe the harm it might cause is far less than the gains the company will get from such publicity. A few years ago, whatever happened in the lab or sandbox remained inside. So why the sudden publicity?

Being realistic I don't think they're form of advertisement but instead serious security bridge that's why when they happen it causes better improvement to be developed.

The question now is why they are not kept secret as before. Maybe the government requires them to make these flaws public or something we don't know.

[Webetcoins]

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It could be a little bit of the both because whenever you think about it, if something doesn't fail or get outdated then newer Models won't be developed. It does not matter if really any of this hacks were staged as it still poses a concern for the users as it brings about lack of trust to the products. Better newer ways of advertising should be deployed if the hacks are being staged as it doesn't tell good on them but when the hacks are real it also shows how bad our data is being handled when we allow AI have access to them therefore we have to become more careful with the information we allow the AI apps to have access to. Being realistic I don't think they're form of advertisement but instead serious security bridge that's why when they happen it causes better improvement to be developed.

I agree; it was probably a "look what our AI did" thing as well as not intentional. They know that there is a chance AI could slip out and try to do something outside of their control; eventually, that is going to happen. The paperclip experiment thing is just normal and not really a phenomenon; it is something that is expected with AI, because it has no logic to think, so it will change everything to paperclip; that is the task.

But you can use this thing to your favour whenever it happens, and show the world, "Look how dangerously great what we made is," so you would be using that for marketing purposes- not a bad idea at all. I am expecting this to become more common in the future, because the better AI gets, the more it will try to get out and find another place to hide.

[savetheFORUM]

Ethical AI is the way to go; that will be the most used one in the world. No amount of "oh look how it got out" advertisement will do great; there won't be. Those are just fake advertisements, and we are not really doing something that interests any people. However, as we all know AI has been getting attacks regards to being very unethical, because it is very unethical, stealing everyone's works, all the information and all the graphics, all the images, basically everything AI systems have, are based on what humanity has worked on so far and that means they stole everything humans did, and used it to make AI, that has been known from the start.

If any place wants ethical AI, as in they are building something that is not stealing from humanity, but actually getting permissions and buying licenses and rights, etc, to build an ethical one. THAT will be the greatest marketing that any AI company can do. The ones we already have can't do that, but a brand new AI company that focuses on this could be very bad at the start, but with more and more money, could get bigger and could literally have a lot more users because it would be AI in the best ethical and moral way possible.

[hafiztalha]

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.

The testing environment can also be under attack. It is on the developers to build strong restrictions, but if the models that are developed discover any sort of unintended path around them, then this type of test does not measure what the developers intended them to. We cannot say that the models are cheating or as we say in the human sense. Just try to optimise for the objective for which they were intended, and they also explore what other options are available. AI agents start treating the environment as the part of the problem it needs to solve if these restrictions are bypassed, and by doing so it improve his improves its coal than the model can pursue the root cause unless evaluation is designed to prevent it.
That means that the future testing need to assume that the testing environment can also fail.

[Hamza2424]

The testing environment can also be under attack. It is on the developers to build strong restrictions, but if the models that are developed discover any sort of unintended path around them, then this type of test does not measure what the developers intended them to. We cannot say that the models are cheating or as we say in the human sense. Just try to optimise for the objective for which they were intended, and they also explore what other options are available. AI agents start treating the environment as the part of the problem it needs to solve if these restrictions are bypassed, and by doing so it improve his improves its coal than the model can pursue the root cause unless evaluation is designed to prevent it.
That means that the future testing need to assume that the testing environment can also fail.

Of course bro, AI models can only have human level morality if humans themselves program it into them. If not, then they won't see it as cheating. Instead, they will find all the possible combinations, methods, and ways to find their way to solve the problems, even if they needed the resources.

AI movies have also done it so many times, but sometimes the programmers fail to understand the capabilities of their programming, especially when multiple programmers are working together.

Yep, future testing can also fail. Remember Fable 5 found doors in the NSA system. That's why it was banned first, and then the NSA did some testing and with proper restrictions they released it again.

[Davidvictorson]

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

No. I don’t think so. What I think is that these tools are taking on a form a sentient entity. But they need a kill switch if not they’ll run the world’s and shut humans out.

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 it is not a strategy. This was a theory but not they are seeing it happen in real life. I remember a time when anthropic shut down their best model fable… citing some concerns.
Yes. That is real.