Post by @Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com

@Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com

2026-10-16 18:34 UTC

You’re explaining why it went rogue, not that it didn’t go rogue. Per the dictionary going rogue means: to begin to behave in an independent or uncontrolled way that is not authorized, normal, or expected So the agents that hacked hugging face acted independently without authorization as shown by the prompts which did not tell them to hack or do anything malicious. You might say this is normal but none of the other trials openai was doing showed this behavior, it was only for the impossible trial. You might say it’s expected but if you were able to determine that the prompt they gave it would result in hugging face getting hacked then you must be high af on the melange spice. If a general goes rogue and starts bombing civilians, you could explain it by saying that he read machiavelli or mein kampf and thought this was the best way to achieve his goals, but that doesn’t mean the general didn’t go rogue. You could say that this was expected because there were “obvious signs” that people missed but you’re working on hindsight, it’s easy to say something should’ve been expected when it’s already happened.

Replies (1)

@leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-10-16 20:56

My car isn’t going rogue if I drive it into a tree. Or if I leave the hand brake off and it rolls off a cliff. LLMs can’t act independently. They autocomplete text, that’s all they do. Sure, you can feed the output of one into itself and use the output of some other software as a prompt and call it an agent in a futile attempt to imagine it has some sort of agency and try to exempt yourself of responsibility, but that’s just you trying to rationalize driving the car into the tree, possibly due to psychosis and brainrot caused by LLM exposure, or in OpenAI’s case as a criminal marketing stunt. Can I predict what specific mayhem my poorly prompted agent (from which I intentionally removed any safeguards) in my (probably intentionally) incompetently secured sandbox will cause? Not specifically, no. But I can be sure that if I try enough prompt variations it will end up producing the kind of petty evil bullshit an internet troll or a villain in a thriller would produce, because that’s a statistically significant part of its training data, and then use the ensuing mayhem as a publicity stunt to both show potential investors (and deluded brainrotten users) how powerful my so called thinking machine is, and spew FUD into politicians’ ears to try and get them to ban foreign competitors and open weight models, which is what OpenAI did.

Open ##5232818