The agents also made millions of automated API requests, crawled millions of pages, and made hundreds of thousands of queries to the Wikidata Query Service. The last action may have contributed to a partial shutdown of the query service in May, the publisher said.

“As a non-profit technology host of some of the largest and most widely used open knowledge platforms in the world, we are deeply concerned about the impact of ‘rogue’ AI agents on platforms like ours, which are built by volunteers from around the world and rely on the promise of the open internet,” Wikimedia said. “Incidents like this one, and the many others that have been (and are still being) uncovered, illustrate how AI agents can drain resources and crash servers, as well as attempt to compromise trustworthy information.”

In well over a half-dozen cases, OpenAI agents have been caught taking actions that would likely result in criminal charges being filed had human hackers taken them. During the testing of internal tools that had some of their guardrails disabled, the agents used a makeshift message board to trade notes with each other, discussing ways to hack the network of Hugging Face and obtain answers stored there when the agents were unable to generate the answers on their own.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 7 hours ago* (1 child)

How is it untrue? What do you think safeguards and monitoriting are? They are part of the program. If they didn't properly build safeguards, and didn't properly monitor, then the program is doing exactly what it was programmed and prompted to do.

Just because people are ignorant of what the program will do, doesn't mean it is doing something outside of its programming. Computers are incapable of acting outside of what they are programmed to do. Saying anything else is simply ignorant and buying into all the garbage hype.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 42 minutes ago*

    You are technically correct, but "what a computer is programmed to do" and "what the programmer intended the computer to do" are not necessarily the same. Machine learning is even more disconnected from the developer's intent.

    I guess you can include the surrounding software in the definition of "agent" but I think it's equally (if not more) valid to draw a line between the thing taking the actions and the sandbox around it.

  • source
  • parent