The linked article is about some site that OpenAI’s models used to discuss answers and other stuff.
Initially, I believed that Anthropic’s model escaping its sandbox story to be dubious—and OpenAI’s similar story even more so specially since it happened so close to Anthropic’s. I believe that these are just fabrications, more or less, to hype themselves up for cmtheir incoming IPO but the media is saturated with claims about AI breaking containment that I don’t know that to think.
Also, the models I’ve had the chance to use were all free—which were good for non-trivial but repetitive tasks but not much else—so I don’t know the capabilities of the flagships.
Ehhh… There was that Claude Code bot that deleted a database and then tried to lie about it. I think the dweebs lost control of this shit pretty early on, but the capabilities are also wildly overstated.
The problem is that the “AI” was given access to that database and the backup. It was and still is just software doing what it has been programmed to do, but stupid people treat it like a thinking machine.
I agree about the capabilities being overstated. I don’t see the appeal in technology that has a chance of being catastrophically wrong sometimes. Why are we trying to write code via pseudorandom number generation?
It’s not a 1:1 comparison, but it reminds me of Bogosort, where elements in an array are randomly shuffled and then checked to see if they happen to be in the right order. Given enough time, it could eventually produce the correct answer, but in the least efficient way possible.
in some alternate reality bogosort is correct on the first try every time