> It's great marketing and the only proof we have is 'trust me bro'.
It is _terrible_ marketing.
The AI companies are already dealing with a large backlash from the average consumer, many of whom are saying they hate it, that it's being forced down their throats, and that it's not actually improving efficiency enough to be worth the negative externalities.
Telling people "We have no control over these things we're building and they have us so outclassed we only find out about their exploits after the fact when someone else tells us they happened" is only likely to massively increase that backlash, and to make the true believers question whether they ought to be using it at all.
There's even some risk of the government intervening and banning their training runs, eliminating the last straw of hope that they could keep ahead of the Chinese open models enough to ever turn some kind of profit.
So, no - it's terrible marketing. That they're sharing it at all is strong evidence it really happened as depicted.
How exactly would the government ban training runs? Like how would that work? What would the legislation text look like? And how would it be enforceable without running afoul of the vagueness doctrine?
This is not even remotely vague compared to what's currently governing us lmao.
Surely you can point out specific elements of vagueness, instead of just imagining a counterfactual future and saying "See told you so!"?
Void-for-vagueness does not just require the lack of a formally specified crime that is immune to allegations of ambiguity. The bar is very, very high.
It requires the statute to be so vague that a person could not have reasonably known that his actions were illegal. Good luck with that.
I think a lot of people here love AI and don't want it taken away. Calling every red flag marketing is a way to trivialize the problem and prevent regulation.
When you understand people's motives, then it's easier to understand why they call it marketing. Personally I feel like it's almost an unconscious reaction to cope with the fact that this stuff is getting really dangerous and they can't believe it themselves - stick your head in the sand and call it marketing.
If you’re serious then you’re case in point the exact type of person that I am talking about. I think some people just lack any capability of foresight whatsoever, it’s very strange.
Ah yes and surely the people leading the labs and research teams who are also worried about catastrophe just don't understand the technology?
Oh wait wait, no, I bet it's that they're conflicted.
And the previous pioneers of the field who left it and are now warning of catastrophe, they don't understand it? Or are they conflicted? No that can't be it.
Oh no no I got it, those ones are illegitimate because they already earned their money!
Man it sure is convenient that we can just categorically dismiss anyone who disagrees with us.
I personally love just watching the "there's no risk here" people have to continually paint themselves into smaller and more awkward corners with every new release though. The contortions are getting very impressive.
You're the only one who made an unsubstantiated claim, saying the only people who are worried about risks are ignorant and don't understand the technology.
This is so trivially disproven that I have to assume only someone seriously motivated to remain ignorant could, in fact, be ignorant of it at this point.
I know AI agents swarms breaking out, and then breaking into other companies without anyone knowing, what a wild prediction - oh wait that actually happened. Time to move those goal posts again.
Can you say concretely why HuggingFace is lying about being successfully hacked?
Is the claim that the benefit to HuggingFace of "ooo wow someone else's proprietary AI is so good" is greater than the downside of "HuggingFace is not a secure service?"
When the bubble pops, their customer is the military/government, and the goal is regulation. "Our thing did another impressive hack" helps both of those goals.
Not saying it's intentional, but it does move them where they wanna go.
It is _terrible_ marketing.
The AI companies are already dealing with a large backlash from the average consumer, many of whom are saying they hate it, that it's being forced down their throats, and that it's not actually improving efficiency enough to be worth the negative externalities.
Telling people "We have no control over these things we're building and they have us so outclassed we only find out about their exploits after the fact when someone else tells us they happened" is only likely to massively increase that backlash, and to make the true believers question whether they ought to be using it at all.
There's even some risk of the government intervening and banning their training runs, eliminating the last straw of hope that they could keep ahead of the Chinese open models enough to ever turn some kind of profit.
So, no - it's terrible marketing. That they're sharing it at all is strong evidence it really happened as depicted.