Although there are a few ways to mitigate the risk, the only way to block it is to get AI to differentiate instructions from data, which is impossible today.
if the instruction is messy fuzzy human language to a system that was not coded instruction by instruction but got generated and trained then there never is a way to differentiate instructions from data if i’m not mistaken
We know that some humans can be trained to do that just fine. Humans are natural neuronal networks. That implies, neuronal networks can in principle do it. We just don’t have any human-capability artificial neuronal networks yet.
LLMs might never get there. But humans aren’t LLMs. If we ever manage to properly model a human brain, that probably will be able to do that task with human-level accuracy (which actually is pretty good if you only look at professionals of the filed).
Hopefully, it doesn’t actually need a human brain for the task - because modeling that might still be a century off.
I have heard in the past that it’s not possible to fully control AI. Like literally, the people developing and running the AI cannot fully control its behavior. I did a quick search to see if I could find more info and found this link on the first page of results: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1032090
I think that we’re going to continue seeing unwanted behavior from AI.
Distinguished credentials, but at the same time I am not buying it. You can control AI. You can turn it off. You can have it not interact with systems you don’t want.
Remember this guy is saying “you cant control AI, we are all doomed” while also saying that we live in a simulation and he is very close to being able to hack us out of it.
Grain of salt and all.
By the way his belief is thus “AI can’t be contained, therefore the simulation can be escaped; by contraposition, if the simulation can’t be escaped, AI can be contained” Since AI cant be contained, he reasons, we can escape the simulation, quite possibly by using a super AI!
Thanks, I fully agree that AI can be controlled in the ways you mentioned. I think most of the discussion around AI not being fully controllable is in the context of if the AI is running as it currently is.
Thanks for the additional info too. I knew nothing about the guy in the link. It was just the first link I found on a quick search about AI not being controllable. I had heard it before, but didn’t remember where, or the exact details.
It’s a text completion model/glorified Markov chain. Of course it can’t input sanitise, it was never meant to do this to begin with.
The tool calling integrations that let it do more are basically making it add a markdown code block in JSON format into the user message, where the middleware intercepts it.
The input and “instructions” are the same thing from its perspective. There’s nothing special that differentiates the two. The user input text, so it will output text, following the most likely sequence from its training.
Input sanitation, basically security 101. And it can’t currently do it…
if the instruction is messy fuzzy human language to a system that was not coded instruction by instruction but got generated and trained then there never is a way to differentiate instructions from data if i’m not mistaken
We know that some humans can be trained to do that just fine. Humans are natural neuronal networks. That implies, neuronal networks can in principle do it. We just don’t have any human-capability artificial neuronal networks yet.
LLMs might never get there. But humans aren’t LLMs. If we ever manage to properly model a human brain, that probably will be able to do that task with human-level accuracy (which actually is pretty good if you only look at professionals of the filed).
Hopefully, it doesn’t actually need a human brain for the task - because modeling that might still be a century off.
Little Bobby Tables strikes again.
That’s also not the only way. Basic governance also works. Why does copilot have so many permissions?
I have heard in the past that it’s not possible to fully control AI. Like literally, the people developing and running the AI cannot fully control its behavior. I did a quick search to see if I could find more info and found this link on the first page of results: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1032090
I think that we’re going to continue seeing unwanted behavior from AI.
Distinguished credentials, but at the same time I am not buying it. You can control AI. You can turn it off. You can have it not interact with systems you don’t want.
Remember this guy is saying “you cant control AI, we are all doomed” while also saying that we live in a simulation and he is very close to being able to hack us out of it.
Grain of salt and all.
By the way his belief is thus “AI can’t be contained, therefore the simulation can be escaped; by contraposition, if the simulation can’t be escaped, AI can be contained” Since AI cant be contained, he reasons, we can escape the simulation, quite possibly by using a super AI!
Thanks, I fully agree that AI can be controlled in the ways you mentioned. I think most of the discussion around AI not being fully controllable is in the context of if the AI is running as it currently is.
Thanks for the additional info too. I knew nothing about the guy in the link. It was just the first link I found on a quick search about AI not being controllable. I had heard it before, but didn’t remember where, or the exact details.
It’s a text completion model/glorified Markov chain. Of course it can’t input sanitise, it was never meant to do this to begin with.
The tool calling integrations that let it do more are basically making it add a markdown code block in JSON format into the user message, where the middleware intercepts it.
The input and “instructions” are the same thing from its perspective. There’s nothing special that differentiates the two. The user input text, so it will output text, following the most likely sequence from its training.