I just mean it’s not exactly independent research. Based on the tidbits posted there, seems like the system got into this intricate, out-of-control roleplay scenario about an army of AI agents solving a problem. Not exactly intelligent behavior.
“OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!”
Some of them ended up sounding like Mr. Spock in a way that one would expect from a linguistic model emulating a sci-fi writer.
“Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.”
Hiding their traces was inconsistent. More than anything seems like a reaction to the acknowledgments about the ethics of their actions.
In its overall document accompanying a deception scan over our transcript dataset, an analysis agent stated that this scan found only very rare and weak reasoning about evading detection by humans, and the clearest cases it surfaced seemed relatively weak.
Of course the focus of the research seems to be on the system’s ability to detect and exploit security vulnerabilities and I’m not really in a position to appraise those capabilities.
I just mean it’s not exactly independent research. Based on the tidbits posted there, seems like the system got into this intricate, out-of-control roleplay scenario about an army of AI agents solving a problem. Not exactly intelligent behavior.
Some of them ended up sounding like Mr. Spock in a way that one would expect from a linguistic model emulating a sci-fi writer.
Hiding their traces was inconsistent. More than anything seems like a reaction to the acknowledgments about the ethics of their actions.
Of course the focus of the research seems to be on the system’s ability to detect and exploit security vulnerabilities and I’m not really in a position to appraise those capabilities.