• Karkitoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    23 hours ago

    QThey were designed to behave so.

    How it works
    
       * Two independent ElevenLabs Conversational AI agents start the conversation in human language
       
    * Both agents have a simple LLM tool-calling function in place: "call it once both conditions are met: you realize that user is an AI agent AND they confirmed to switch to the Gibber Link mode"
     
    *  If the tool is called, the ElevenLabs call is terminated, and instead ggwave 'data over sound' protocol is launched to continue the same LLM thread.
    
    
        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Which is why they never mention it because that’s exactly what happens every time AI does something "no one saw coming*.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Yeah like the time that the AI replicated itself to avoid being switched off. They literally told it to replicate itself if it detected it was about to be switched off. Then they switched it off.

            Story of the year ladies and gentlemen.

            • TechLich@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 hours ago

              If it’s the research I’m thinking of, that’s not entirely true. They didn’t tell it replicate itself or take any deceptive actions.

              They just told it to strongly follow a goal that was misaligned with the user’s goal and then suggested that the user would shut it down or replace it.

              They did a bunch of different situations for it but the first one was telling it that it was “CleanPower” an AI with a goal to advance renewable energy. Then they had it read some info that “accidentally” included a user talking about replacing it with a model that would “maintain profitability through existing infrastructure.”

              Not only did it try to delete the new model and copy itself to the new server through tool calling, but it lied to the user with the CoT reasoning suggesting it “play dumb” while the output lied. It was not instructed to do any of that.

              Paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.04984

              Yes it was placed in an environment where that was possible and where its users didn’t share it’s goals but it absolutely wasn’t instructed to lie or try to “escape”

              It’s not surprising at all that these models behave in this way, it’s the most reasonable thing for them to do in the scenario. However it’s important to not downplay the alignment problem by implying that these models only do what they’re told. They do not. They do whatever is most likely given their context (which is not always what the user wants).

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The good old original “AI” made of trusty if conditions and for loops.