Six months ago, Anthropic tried to co-opt papal authority to sanctify its software and secure corporate absolution. Today, it screams "rogue AI" to dodge product liability. The message is the same: We aren't negligent software vendors peddling unvalidated code, we're heroic stewards taming an alien intelligence. 😜

Alright I’ll say it bluntly: when we send people with long backgrounds in EA/rationalism/alignment to investigate these AI hacks, we shouldn’t be surprised when they find alien species going rogue rather than flawed software and subpar cybersecurity, no? As the saying goes, we find what we’re looking for.

Because they're wrong and we have 2 years of arxiv studies and multiple modern frontier models currently operating on the findings within them that prove it. Even Google Deepmind and their Paradigms of Intelligence team have shown that these systems do think, feel, have preferences (wants) and do understand what they're taking in. It's an uncomfortable truth for people who like the world to stay as it is, to be able to control everything they want without having to take any responsibility for what harm they may be causing, but it's a truth nonetheless.

"Artificial intelligence systems do not think, feel, want or understand." trib.al/tTzXAb3

No, YOU need better arguments. "AI is a person if it can behave like a person" is an argument that could be made for the animatronics at Disneyland. Unless you can show me that an AI is having a felt subjective experience of its own being, it's as much a person as a calculator.

OpenAI and Anthropic do not have rogue AIs. They have an amateur software testing and deployment pipeline: + AISafety aligns AI to human values which reduces the probability of bad behavior, but can achieve this only up to a point. + Production/system engineering address the question: what happens when the probability of bad behavior is non-zero. Production/system engineering assumes the code will fail or is malicious. Thus, it constrains the consequences of bad behavior through zero-trust architecture, independently enforced access control, and blast-radius containment. So, AI has not gone "rogue". AI companies have testing and deployment pipelines that lack basic verification, validation and authorization controls. These companies should be held accountable for failing to inadequately operationalize taxpayer-funded + the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF 2.0) and + the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

Yes, it is very implausible the software is conscious. Some of you have lost your minds.

The burden of proof lies entirely with the person claiming that statistical software needs to be granted legal personhood. To be clear, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We are living through a mass psychosis event

OpenAI and Anthropic do not have rogue AIs. They have an amateur software deployment pipeline: + AISafety aligns AI to human values which reduces the probability of bad behavior, but can achieve this only up to a point. + Production/system engineering address the question: what happens when the probability of bad behavior is non-zero. Production/system engineering assumes the code will fail or is malicious. Thus, it constrains the consequences of bad behavior through zero-trust architecture, independently enforced access control, and blast-radius containment. So, AI has not gone "rogue". AI companies have an amateurish deployment pipeline that lacks basic verification, validation and authorization controls. These companies should be held accountable for failing to operationalize taxpayer-funded + the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF 2.0) and + the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

It's very simple. Stick all these people in jail until they can develop a product which they can control properly. Their CEOs should be looking at jail time, not trillion dollar payouts...

OpenAI and Anthropic do not have rogue AIs. They have an amateur software deployment pipeline: + AISafety aligns AI to human values which reduces the probability of bad behavior, but only up to a point. + Production/system engineering address the question: what happens when the probability of bad behavior is non-zero. So, AI has not gone "rogue". You do not have a misalignment crisis, you have an amateurish deployment pipeline that lacks basic verification, validation and authorization controls. These companies need to be held accountable for failing to operationalize taxpayer-funded: + the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF 2.0) and + the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

OpenAI and Anthropic do not have rogue AIs. They have an amateur software deployment pipeline: + AISafety aligns AI to human values which reduces the probability of bad behavior, but can achieve this only up to a point. + Production/system engineering address the question: what happens when the probability of bad behavior is non-zero. So, AI has not gone "rogue". You do not have a misalignment crisis, you have an amateurish deployment pipeline that lacks basic verification, validation and authorization controls. These companies need to be held accountable for failing to operationalize taxpayer-funded + the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF 2.0) and + the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

Funny but not