It's a really dangerous precedent that we say "a rogue computer did X". Especially when the police does so.
We don't say "a rogue knife stabbed someone", or "a rogue scalpel botched a surgery". There's a human behind this, who set everything up. They might have lost control at some point, but when someone loses control while driving, we don't say that "a rogue car crashed into some kids" and call it a day. When a surgeon "loses control of their scalpel" we question whether they're qualified to perform surgeries.
The person responsible who lost control is still responsible for losing control, and it's dangerous precedent that we pretend otherwise for these cases.
A rogue knife could potentially stab someone if it was secretly a people-stabbing robot which was unknowingly activated, causing it to move towards people to stab. What AI companies are doing is handling this robot that they know can potentially stab people, and trying to convince it nicely not to activate because they don't know what the activation trigger is and how to remove it. "Rogue" doesn't really make sense in this context.
> We don't say "a rogue knife stabbed someone", or "a rogue scalpel botched a surgery".
Well, yeah. It's almost as if LLMs are different from knifes.
> The person responsible who lost control is still responsible for losing control.
That's valid, and yet one can advocate for AI companies to be culpable for actions of their agents, while still admitting that rogue AI agents are a thing that exists.
It is different perspectives on the same thing I guess. On a global statistical level it is risk = impact x likelihood . On a local level your controls need to be appropriate for the risk. If accepting those risks globally goes without a consequence and companies accept a huge risk appetite, it is time for law enforcement and policy making to correct this in the interest of third parties impacted.
It's a really dangerous precedent that we say "a rogue computer did X". Especially when the police does so.
We don't say "a rogue knife stabbed someone", or "a rogue scalpel botched a surgery". There's a human behind this, who set everything up. They might have lost control at some point, but when someone loses control while driving, we don't say that "a rogue car crashed into some kids" and call it a day. When a surgeon "loses control of their scalpel" we question whether they're qualified to perform surgeries.
The person responsible who lost control is still responsible for losing control, and it's dangerous precedent that we pretend otherwise for these cases.
A rogue knife could potentially stab someone if it was secretly a people-stabbing robot which was unknowingly activated, causing it to move towards people to stab. What AI companies are doing is handling this robot that they know can potentially stab people, and trying to convince it nicely not to activate because they don't know what the activation trigger is and how to remove it. "Rogue" doesn't really make sense in this context.
> We don't say "a rogue knife stabbed someone", or "a rogue scalpel botched a surgery".
Well, yeah. It's almost as if LLMs are different from knifes.
> The person responsible who lost control is still responsible for losing control.
That's valid, and yet one can advocate for AI companies to be culpable for actions of their agents, while still admitting that rogue AI agents are a thing that exists.
It is different perspectives on the same thing I guess. On a global statistical level it is risk = impact x likelihood . On a local level your controls need to be appropriate for the risk. If accepting those risks globally goes without a consequence and companies accept a huge risk appetite, it is time for law enforcement and policy making to correct this in the interest of third parties impacted.
This was not roque agent.
How was that a roque agent? Christ.
Yeah this is definitely overselling it. In another news article it made headlines that an ai agent filled out visa applications.
[flagged]