Resident of the world, traveling the road of life
69749 stories
·
22 followers

AI will HACK ALL THE TVs by the end of 2026! Or not

1 Share

Anthropic have a new scary campfire story on why everything they work on is evil and out to get you! This one is called “AI models may be capable of self-replicating without access to a datacenter.” Here’s the headline claim: [Anthropic]

Our experiments suggest that small AI models may be months away from being capable enough to self-replicate on commercial internet-of-things (IoT) devices, like smart ovens and off-brand Android TV boxes.

… If small models improve at their historical rate, they’ll match this capability level by the end of this year.

The end of this year.

The paper constructs a scenario. This is otherwise known as making up a sci-fi story about killer robots, then telling the incredibly credulous press that this can happen in the next two months, and then they print it as-is.

Here’s Joseph Menn at the Guardian swallowing this tall tale, hook, line, and sinker: [Guardian]

the red team, as such internal testers are called, said it created a malicious AI program that spread autonomously through internet-connected “smart” televisions and could do the same inside other ordinary devices.

No they did not! The team made up a story about a program that might do that if a hundred other things that don’t exist come true!

Menn also compared this scenario to Harry Potter, because of course he did. Read another book!

Menn spoke to an “expert” who told him:

What differentiates AI worms from typical reproducing viruses is that AI models can learn as they go.

Chatbot models do not learn as they go! That’s why the AI vendors spend a fortune on training and post-training!

Anthropic’s scenario posits an AI network worm  — a self-replicating program.

We’ve had computer worms since 1971. Someone else (not Anthropic) built an AI-based worm earlier this year and tested it on an isolated network. This did not propagate the model itself, because chatbot models are quite big. Instead, the test worm took over smaller machines it had access to and ran tiny models on them. [arXiv, PDF]

Anthropic took this earlier experiment and says it means a whole model “could” copy itself from machine to machine. This means it “could” set up a botnet of TV set-top boxes! And spread all by itself! You can’t prove it won’t!

They did run a small model on a network of 15 Android set-top boxes. It ran at a blistering 0.39 tokens per second.

There are a few other steps that would need to be shown for the threat to hold. The bot has to scan the wider internet. It needs to hack into the set-top box. This has to be done with their tiny model, at less than a token per second. Then it has to copy itself.

The researchers don’t bother testing if any of these work. They just say “not our focus.”

It is true that embedded boxes have notoriously awful security. There have been some huge botnets on these insecure boxes. Those botnets run actual code, which is quite a bit smaller and faster.

Those botnets existing does not let you handwave how your evil chatbot could totally do that for sure.

If you can create a model that’s smart enough to hack tiny embedded hardware while it’s running on tiny embedded hardware, and if it can figure out how to hack new small boxes, and if it can do all of this without the researchers helping it along at every stumble, like all the previous AI hacking researchers did … then sure. But you can’t just assume any of that.

Anthropic says “could” a lot in this paper. “Could” and “might” and even “will” are all words that mean “doesn’t”. “Could” is not enough.

And they admit that “doesn’t” is the word for how this works: [Al Jazeera]

Although no current AI model proved to be both powerful and small enough to self-replicate reliably on a smart TV used in testing,

Much like no current slingshot has proven elastic enough to fire a space shuttle. Obviously we just have to scale up.

The models would only have to shrink by 99% and run with a thousandth of the data centre compute they’re made for while still being able to hack into arbitrary gadgets and come up with new hacks. Autonomously. And they’d have to do all of this by the distant magical future era of the end of 2026.

But maybe I’m wrong. Show me! You’ve got ten weeks.

This paper is marketing. Not to you and me, but to credulous government regulators. The current US administration already believes the chatbot is the magical truth machine, and they think Anthropic has the best magical truth machine.

This paper is a message to say: regulate AI. Make rules so only the huge vendors like us can comply. Then the AI can convert NASA to use giant slingshots.

 

Read the whole story
mkalus
34 minutes ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

AI Is Already 'Amplifying the Destruction' of War

1 Share
AI Is Already 'Amplifying the Destruction' of War

The UN met this week to discuss, among other things, the threat of autonomous weapons.

“The technology is developing at a pace that is very concerning,” Laurent Gisel, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) legal warfare team, told 404 Media. Gisel was in NYC this week to address the UN about all the things that are driving conflict across the planet. His prepared remarks include a statement on the illegal arms trade, nuclear weapons, mines, and – of course – AI.

Autonomous weapons have been a hot topic at the UN this year. In September, the UN attempted to pass a treaty that would govern the use of killer AI weapons. Diplomats from Russia and the US stripped it of its power. 

But the UN has pressed forward. On Tuesday, the international governing body announced a new initiative that would grapple with the issue. But, as Gisel said: “multilateral processes take quite some time” and  “we already see the effects on the battlefield.” 

AI is already picking targets and killing people. Gisel said the technology is “amplifying the destruction, amplifying the violation of the law, amplifying the humanitarian harm caused by conflicts.”

Israel used an AI powered by Microsoft to pick targets in Gaza. In Ukraine, AI-powered Russian drones are deciding which humans to kill. The United States military is pitching itself as an “AI-first” fighting force. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced Project Meridian, an initiative to guide the AI-powered autonomous weapons of the future. Three of Meridian's leads are Elon Musk, defense contractor Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.

For Gisel, one of the biggest dangers of AI is how fast it is. A core selling point for the tech is that it can help commanders make decisions faster. But that also accelerates the pace of mistakes. “Targets are created at higher speed and higher frequency, and are actually then prosecuted quicker, and with that give us great concerns in terms of the level of human control that is retained,” he said. “The human is supposed to remain in the loop.”

The human does not always remain in the loop. The Israel Defense Forces told journalists it did not thoroughly vet the kill lists generated by Lavender, the AI system it used to pick targets in Gaza. “It's known in the [civilian world] [...] that humans tend to trust the systems,” Gisel said. “That it's more the case when the humans are tired, when the humans are under stress, when the humans have to deliver quickly, and that's of course exactly the situation in which soldiers are in. So all of that gives us a lot of concerns in terms of retaining control on the use of force in armed conflict.”

AI boosters often pitch AI as an “easy button,” a way for people to brute force a complicated task and get it over with. But the consequences are much different when someone in Silicon  Valley is parsing spreadsheets or reverse engineering code  than when they’re prosecuting a war in the Middle East.

“That's something that the developers of those systems don't necessarily realize either, because some of those systems are developed by technological companies very far away from the battlefield, and they are not naturally all developed for battlefield use,” Gisel said.

International humanitarian law is an ever-evolving legal negotiation between world powers meant to limit the devastating effects of war. It’s imperfect and countries with vast armies like the US and Russia often do not abide by it. The ICRC, which Gisel represents, exists explicitly to shape these rules and laws. Some of the laws are old, far older than AI, but according to Gisel humanitarian law applies to “all weapons, means, and methods of warfare. Those of yesterday, those of today, and those of tomorrow.”

Beyond the opportunity to code humanitarian law into AI, Gisel said there should be new rules and regulations for the new technology. “Not to prohibit them all, but to prohibit specific categories of autonomous weapon systems and put specific restrictions on others,” he said.

"...Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle"

But he does have redlines. The first is any AI support system that removes a human being from the kill chain. “That requires specific limits and guardrails and restrictions from our perspective,” he said.

“The other type of autonomous weapon system that we recommend prohibiting is those that would target human beings directly, where the target profile is the human being, as opposed to a tank, weapon systems, or another typical military objective, and the reason why is based on ethical concerns, humanitarian concerns, and a moral line,” he added.

Autonomous weapons have existed for a long time. Some US warships have gatling guns that track and destroy incoming targets automatically. The difference is that those weapons track ships and missiles, not human beings.

According to Gisel, one problem with autonomous weapons that target humans or AI support systems that pick targets is that they’re unpredictable. He said banning unpredictable weapons should be a non-brainer. “Military discipline is about your forces [...] delivering the commander's intent,” he said. “If you have a weapon that is unpredictable in its effect, how can you deliver the commander's intent?”

Data Centers Are War Targets Now
"Why have we gotten to the point where we have permitted militaries of various states to use civilian commercial data centers for their military purposes?"

But it’s been a sticking point in negotiations. “We would have thought, military considerations, would align. But actually, that has also faced quite some pushback. Strangely enough,” he said. He spoke about the negotiations in August and September from earlier in the year. “There were references in the last proposal by the chair of the group on precisely all those questions: that the autonomous weapon systems need to be reliable, explainable, understandable, and predictable. And all of that was taken out by some states.”

Gisel also opposes AI in nuclear command and control. In 1983, the Soviet Union’s early warning systems reported that the US had launched a nuclear weapon at the country. Soviet lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov decided the computer had made a mistake and decided not to report the attacks up the chain. He was right.

“States will continue to use satellite systems and therefore algorithms that go with those satellites,” he said. “But it's so important to ensure that it remains entirely under human control and a really meaningful human control.”

While the UN deliberates and the ICRC wrangles with how to regulate all this, the wars continue and military forces continue to embrace AI. “That's why it's urgent to have decisions being made by the international community on what to prohibit and what to restrict [...] once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle,” he said.

Gisel said the world needs to act now. “Otherwise, it's the technology that will decide what is acceptable, and that's not the world we want to live in, right?”

Read the whole story
mkalus
1 day ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

Crossed Flags

1 Share

Michael Kalus posted a photo:

Crossed Flags

Spotted parked on the street: a first-generation Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe, early ’60s. Chevy’s answer to the imports had an air-cooled flat-six in the back and no grille up front. Ralph Nader made it notorious in Unsafe at Any Speed, but the Monza was the trim that made people want one. This one is still wearing its 1977 BC inspection decal.



Read the whole story
mkalus
1 day ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

Smile

1 Share

Michael Kalus posted a photo:

Smile

Spotted parked on the street: a first-generation Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe, early ’60s. Chevy’s answer to the imports had an air-cooled flat-six in the back and no grille up front. Ralph Nader made it notorious in Unsafe at Any Speed, but the Monza was the trim that made people want one. This one is still wearing its 1977 BC inspection decal.



Read the whole story
mkalus
1 day ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

Passed, 1977

1 Share

Michael Kalus posted a photo:

Passed, 1977

Spotted parked on the street: a first-generation Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe, early ’60s. Chevy’s answer to the imports had an air-cooled flat-six in the back and no grille up front. Ralph Nader made it notorious in Unsafe at Any Speed, but the Monza was the trim that made people want one. This one is still wearing its 1977 BC inspection decal.



Read the whole story
mkalus
1 day ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete

Behind the Wheel

1 Share

Michael Kalus posted a photo:

Behind the Wheel

Spotted parked on the street: a first-generation Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe, early ’60s. Chevy’s answer to the imports had an air-cooled flat-six in the back and no grille up front. Ralph Nader made it notorious in Unsafe at Any Speed, but the Monza was the trim that made people want one. This one is still wearing its 1977 BC inspection decal.



Read the whole story
mkalus
1 day ago
reply
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories