It’s the latest instance of “misaligned” activity confirmed by the company as concerns about AI risks grow.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Right? Either they’re lying for market share, doing it intentionally for market share, or they’re grossly incompetent at sandboxing an instance. Either way, blame can’t be assigned to an agent. If it can, our world is headed for a very dark place. Blame should be assigned to the individual or company using the agent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Blame should be assigned to the individual

    String up individuals, if the 'company' is responsible (screw that they're legal people BS), then no-one is, and the fine is just the cost of doing nasty business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    How do you propose someone "sandboxes an instance" of a tool with Internet access (without which it wouldn't be particularly useful)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You can restrict which websites it is allowed to access, monitor the traffic, etc... There's tons of options here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Again, reducing the usefulness of a general purpose agent that can do anything for you. Plus if OpenAI starts a whitelist of allowed domains Codex can access, y'all will be up in arms too and immediately there will be a fork to remove the whitelist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments