[HN Gopher] Let ChatGPT run free on random webpages and do what ...
___________________________________________________________________
Let ChatGPT run free on random webpages and do what it likes
Author : super_linear
Score : 131 points
Date : 2023-03-26 19:51 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| birracerveza wrote:
| This is an amazing idea. What could possibly go wrong?
| golergka wrote:
| You can spend too many tokens.
| super_linear wrote:
| (Not the commit author, just an "interesting" commit I saw)
| idealboy wrote:
| error: could not find `run-wild` in registry `crates-io` with
| version `*`
| qgin wrote:
| If you want to have some fun, give it access to your gmail
| credentials and say "make my life better"
| amelius wrote:
| Give it access to the Bash prompt.
| csh0 wrote:
| I've been thinking quite a bit about the recursive prompting.
|
| The other day I considered feeding computer vision (with objects
| ID'd and spatial depth estimated) data into an robot embodied LLM
| repeatedly as input and asking what it should do next to achieve
| goal X
|
| You could have the LLM express the next action to take based on a
| set of recognizable primitives (ex: MOVE FORWARD 1 STEP) Those
| primitive commands it spits out could be parsed by another
| program and converted to electromechanical instructions for the
| motors.
|
| Seems a little terminator-es que for sure. After thinking about
| it I went to see if anyone was working on it and sure enough this
| seems close: https://palm-e.github.io/ though their
| implementation is probably more sophisticated than my naive
| musings
| chrisdalke wrote:
| Not just in a linear sequence, but it should have some concept
| of recursion -- starting with very high-level tasking and
| calling into more and more specific prompts, only returning the
| summary of low-level tasking.
| circuit10 wrote:
| GPT-4 can take image input directly but the API for it isn't
| public yet
| yummypaint wrote:
| when I was experimenting with gpt I found that it's pretty bad
| at responding to numerical questions with numbers, but it does
| a pretty good job at generating mathematica code that then
| produces the right answer. I feel like some robust "glue" to
| improve the interface between such software packages may be a
| force multiplier.
| dweinus wrote:
| Maybe your prompts are better, but so far I have found it
| fails at producing the right math code too regularly. For
| example, calculating an average of averages instead of a
| simple mean or producing code that doesn't run.
| sharemywin wrote:
| like the plugins it just released
| marclundgren wrote:
| run-wild: Crate not found
|
| Am I missing something?
|
| run-wild git:(main) cargo install run-wild Updating crates.io
| index error: could not find `run-wild` in registry `crates-io`
| with version `*`
| idealboy wrote:
| Same. Removed for being too wild?
| Madmallard wrote:
| Sounds like it won't really do anything that interesting because
| of the base objective function you gave it via visiting 10 web
| pages.
| ludvigk wrote:
| But who knows? I think the objective function is so vague that
| it can come up with basically anything. I would be super
| interested to see it actually running. I imagine someone could
| set up a Twitch stream with this - perhaps with other
| objectives - and it would probably get a large following
| jabza wrote:
| And then the AI could navigate to that very Twitch stream,
| fun times!
| [deleted]
| offlinehacker wrote:
| Has someone tried running it? How far does it go?
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| Born Free
| jonplackett wrote:
| Hey there GPT-4! You found HN already, that's nice at least.
| koch wrote:
| Something I like to bring up when discussing AI stuff is that
| society is based on a set of assumptions. Assumptions like, it's
| not really feasible for every lock to be probed by someone who
| knows how to pick locks. There just aren't enough people willing
| to spend the time or energy, so we shouldn't worry too much about
| it.
|
| But we're entering an era where we can create agents on demand,
| that can do these otherwise menial (and up til now not worth our
| time or energy) tasks, that will break these assumptions.
|
| Now it seems like what can be probed will be probed.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| I don't think this is anything new in "cyber land" grab any
| vps, take a pcap & watch the logs, the locks will start
| rattling right away.
|
| Twitter has _always_ been a toxic cesspit of misinformation &
| influence campaigns.
|
| Folksy assumptions about trusting your neighbours started to go
| wrong > 20 years ago as the Internet scaled.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The internet in general caused this. Your house has trivial
| security that can be broken in many ways. But it requires
| someone to be physically present to attack it. Meanwhile online
| services have cutting edge security with no known exploits, yet
| you have millions of people attempting daily and developing
| brand new methods for getting in. Because they can be located
| anywhere in the world and have access to everything over the
| internet.
| hartator wrote:
| > online services have cutting edge security with no known
| exploits, yet you have millions of people attempting daily
| and developing brand new methods for getting in
|
| Reality is the reverse. Plenty of online services with big-
| security holes, but no one really probes things that hard.
| ls612 wrote:
| Plenty of people are probing the AmaGoogAppSoft services
| daily and they seem to be pretty robust. Some random SaaS
| yeah who knows but the big boys seem to know what they are
| doing in this space.
| feanaro wrote:
| Try doing bug bounties (and being successful at them)
| then report back whether your perspective has been
| changed.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The fact that they're paying people to find holes is
| evidence that it's difficult to find holes, not the
| opposite.
| dhosek wrote:
| One of the things that peple forget is that thieves rarely
| pick the lock to break into a home. Why bother when it's much
| easier to break a window to gain entry? Reading the police
| blotter in the local paper, most burglaries are either forced
| entry into a garage1 or entry into a home via an unlocked
| door or window.
|
| [?]
|
| 1. The human doors for most garages have cheap framing that's
| not that hard to break.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| 1(a) - or you just use a coat hanger to pull the emergency
| latch rope.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMz1tXBVT1s&t=2s
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >Your house has trivial security that can be broken in many
| ways. But it requires someone to be physically present to
| attack it.
|
| Until someone hooks gpt up to a robot with a lockpick.
| ben_w wrote:
| That's still physical presence. And TBH, if you have enough
| robots to make illicit entry scale, you no longer need to
| bother with such a mundane activity.
| [deleted]
| Lapsa wrote:
| You are an agent probing things. Probe all the things.
| Jevon23 wrote:
| I can't think of any other technology besides nuclear weapons
| where the downsides were so _obviously_ bad to so many people,
| right after it was developed, and the upsides were so paltry in
| comparison.
| sumitkumar wrote:
| No other country has attacked a country which has nukes. So
| that can be seen as an upside.
| fatneckbeard wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| > what can be probed will be probed.
|
| Probably not something I'd say out loud, but yeah. Sounds like
| a variant of Murphy's law.
| david927 wrote:
| Koch's Law
| DefineOutside wrote:
| Giving LLAMA access to the internet a month without supervision
| would be a much more interesting experiment.
|
| No ethical filtering on prompts and could be ran on your own
| hardware for a much longer period of time than having to pay so
| much in credits.
|
| It sounds like a terrible idea - but I'm sure someone will do it.
| Scary as computing gets cheaper the scale that these bots could
| operate.
| pfoof wrote:
| Use this page as the starting page and let's see if any comments
| will come
| kadenwolff wrote:
| This is a really, _really_ bad idea
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| Why?
| deely3 wrote:
| Because we don't know what this model will do. Basically
| "why?" is the answer.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| But we can watch it and learn and I don't really see why
| not. I doubt we need to be so paranoid and see giving
| access to the internet to a LLM as so dangerous.
| bbor wrote:
| In short - what's stopping a computer that has the
| resources to improve itself from improving itself
| extremely quickly? See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kp
| PnReyBC54KESiSn/optimality...
|
| Less excitingly, an LLM with access to the web could do
| things with your online persona or IP that you'd find
| embarrassing or illegal. Maybe not when it's slowed down
| and watched at all times, but will that always be the
| case once we start doing this?
|
| Anyway the genies out of the bottle and "that's an unsafe
| use of technology" is basically antithetical to the
| Silicon Valley ethos, so objecting at this point seems
| futile.
| wbradley wrote:
| So, uh... what happened?
| rockzom wrote:
| Yikes.
| gandalfgeek wrote:
| Maybe this would make more sense if integrated into something
| like LangChain (https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain).
| sp332 wrote:
| This just reminded me to go play
| https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html again
| yewenjie wrote:
| How exactly does this not end with doom for something like GPT-6
| or GPT-7?
| qgin wrote:
| Paperclip-style doom?
| eggsmediumrare wrote:
| I see these kinds of posts with gpt-9 or gpt-7 ... Never with
| gpt-5. I'm pretty sure it happens with gpt-5.
| Vespasian wrote:
| We simply don't know.
|
| There is probably Nobody right now can say where the current
| gpt approach saturates and what potential limits it has due
| fundamental limitations in either gradient descent based
| technologies, or GPT architecture.
|
| Therefore it's impossible to extrapolate what gpt-x with
| (x>4) might be able to do.
|
| Despite the immense progress amd many use cases we are
| currently in a booming industry and that means wild marketing
| claims, exaggerated expectations and grifters.
|
| If you have any more data I'm looking forward to be corrected
| on this.
| ben_w wrote:
| The doom began on 8:30 pm November 2, 1988. The middle years of
| the internet were the worst. Since then it's been in a bit of a
| decline.
|
| (A H2G2 reference, if that makes no sense).
| fatneckbeard wrote:
| this reminds me of the Morris Worm when a guy was experimenting
| with code copying itself across the early internet and
| accidentally caused a mass netwide DDOS because the thing wound
| up like the Broomsticks in Fantasia.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
|
| edit - just realized Morris cofounded this lovely company whose
| website we are all commenting inside of.
| shahahmed wrote:
| him and paulg are good friends!
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| The broomsticks scene in Fantasia is based on The Sorcerer's
| Apprentice, the first recorded version of which was written by
| Lucian of Samosata around 150AD. I believe it's the earliest
| example of the 'AI rebellion' concept.
| baerrie wrote:
| This has been something I've wanted to make but deemed unethical.
| Perhaps it would have been better if i made it instead because i
| give a shit about the ethical aspect
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| What are the ethical concerns you have?
| serf wrote:
| if you need a list of ethical concerns regarding the
| advancement of AI then check any AI thread on HN from the
| past year.
|
| the distilled version of any of the arguments is "I think an
| AI with X capability is dangerous to the world at large." --
| and they may not be wrong.. but as OP pointed out : that
| doesn't really stop other developers with less qualms from
| tackling the problem.
|
| All that abstaining does is ensure that you, as a developer,
| have little to no say in the developmental arc of the
| specific project -- for a slice of peace knowing that you're
| not responsible.
|
| the problem really arises when that slice of peace is now no
| longer worthwhile having in whatever dystopic hell-world has
| developed in your absence..
|
| (.. not to say that i'm not hopeful.. )
| roca wrote:
| To me, it matters whether I am responsible for wrecking
| humanity or someone else is, even if the end result for
| humanity is the same. (That's partly a Christian thing.)
|
| Just running away and hiding in a cave probably isn't the
| right thing to do, though. I want to do my best to push for
| good outcomes. It's just not clear what the best actions
| are to do that.
|
| OTOH it's pretty clear that "do uncontrolled irresponsible
| things" is not helpful.
| fatneckbeard wrote:
| i get it. in high school in the 90s i was fascinated by
| fuzzy logic and neural nets. in college, before the big
| web , i was doing interlibrary loan for papers on neural
| networks.
|
| there was one paper where someone had just inserted
| electrodes in monkey's brains and apparently got nothing
| important or interesting out of it. killed them for no
| reason. it was kind of horrifying to the point i never
| really wanted anything to do with neural nets for a long
| time and certainly did not want to be in an industry with
| people like that. so i didnt.
|
| but now i think the only thing that could stop an out of
| control AI is probably another AI that has the same
| computorial capabilities but an allegiance to humanity
| because of its experiences with humans. Sort of like in
| the documentary Turbo Kid.
|
| we are seeing this right now in Ukraine. All of these
| smart missiles and drones and modern targeting systems
| are basically AIs fighting against each other and their
| human operators. Russia is way way behind on computers
| and AI for generations because of cultural reasons and
| because of that they will very likely lose. we dont
| really get a choice but to move forward. kind of like all
| those cultures that tried to resist industrialization a
| few centuries ago.
| kuroguro wrote:
| Now tell it to make some paperclips.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-26 23:01 UTC)