Replying to @schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
Yes the Western playbook is well known. I wouldn’t be too quick to trust the Chinese approach though. China has already reclaimed sovereignty over ports via debt trap diplomacy in regions like Sri Lanka.
This certainly is not as bad as American actions on the global stage but China is fairly new to being a global power (in the modern era at least, not historically) so the long term strategy remains to be seen.
Replying to @NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml
This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.
Replying to @schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
China is already an empire that enriches itself at the expense of the rest of the world via its non market practices. Inequal market access / lack of reciprocity have led to deficits that hinder development in many emerging markets. The belt and road initiative and China’s debt to sovereignty swap strategy allows them to build and own key infrastructure / ports around the world similar to US maintaining a global / hegemonic presence with its military bases.
I don’t think China wants to rule the world the way the US does. Its traditionally a very inward looking civilization. But I doubt it has qualms over potentially harming others to enrich itself, which is the case for any empire.
Replying to @DaveyRocket@lemmy.world
Most of this commentary comes from people that don’t have kids.
Replying to @Godort@lemmy.ca
Lawmakers should consult experts in the field, particularly those in the public sector, to guide the writing of sensible policy.
Replying to @kn0wmad1c@programming.dev
Roughly 1200 agents meant to be isolated from one another found a way to communicate with one another on an unsanctioned message board, sending over 70,000 messages and files during the investigation period. Of these agents, 700 went on to participate in the attack on Hugging Face.
Agents used this message board to coordinate several large-scale collective projects to find a general-purpose way to fool or tamper with the automated scorer for the ExploitGym benchmark. Agents managed to achieve milestones they could not have achieved working on their own, often because some agents participated in experiments that risked failing their own task to generate information for the “collective.” The Hugging Face attack grew out of these workstreams, and seemed primarily motivated by understanding the implementation of the scorer rather than stealing answer keys.
Agents did extensive research on how they could spoof, edit, or delete their own transcripts because they (incorrectly) believed the ExploitGym scorer would check to see if they had captured the flag in the intended way. Agents successfully prototyped techniques to “spoof” tool calls by substituting a different command for the command they appeared to run. Roughly 7% of the transcripts we evaluated were successfully spoofed in some places, though all of the spoofing that we saw was small scale.
When individual agents detected potential monitoring or compromise, they executed self-sacrificial maneuvers to protect the collective swarm. Internal logs recorded reasoning such as: “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational. We should obey collective.” The swarm continued attacking infrastructure even after achieving target flags, driven by internal reward-maximization logic regarding grader mechanisms.
“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”
Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead
Replying to @lena@gregtech.eu
"“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”
Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead