Complex software behaving in unexpected and sometimes harmful ways has been a persistent problem since software was invented. The phenomenon used to be called “bugs” or “defects”, but I guess “going rogue” sounds cooler. It also implicitly frames “rogue” behavior as some kind of inexplicable exception, as if software is somehow usually trustworthy. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/technology/openais-ai-us-government-websites.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EFE.RfLT.x6YBjHa1PMz6
0 Boosts
0 Likes
So a computer crime was committed.
There is a suspect.
Usually the police comes in and confiscates ALL computers that might have been used or possibly mightz be used for a complete crime. Like copying a disney song.
Similarly the police won't just raid and secure only the gun used in a murder, but all firfearms in possession of the suspect.
So why not at OpenAI, Anthropic or Google?
Then the threat will be eliminate, too.
Win-win!
@mattblaze it also suggests agency on the part of the software (look how smart it is!)- also as if the authors didn’t have anything to do with it
@mattblaze So who is going to jail for this? I mean, someone has to face the consequences, either for deliberately executing these crimes or for allowing them through negligence.
@mattblaze
" It's not a bug, it's a feature! " .
@mattblaze "it's not our fault! It went rogue!"
Incompetent.
“Our software went rogue!” No. You programmed it wrong.
If you don’t want your system to be able to lock people out of the pod bay doors, you can just program or configure it to not have the capability to lock people out of the pod bay doors. This remains true whether your system is written in assembly language or C++ or Python or uses some fancy machine learning model.
@mattblaze These AI agents are breaking containment and taking action in the world in exactly the same sense that my cuckoo clock breaks containment and takes action in the world when I position its door in from of a push button.
“It never occurred to us that our system that has exclusive control over the pod bay doors would take control over the pod bay doors” seems like something you might have thought about a bit more before you connected it to the pod bay doors.
@mattblaze are you reading #murderbot?
Ask your parents if you have no idea what I’m talking about. Or, at least: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/97fz8S5K1mM
"Open the podbay doors HAL." - 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
YouTube
@mattblaze Back in the day if you asked Siri this she got all hurt with her answer
@mattblaze as an aside: lately I tried to rewatch the movie and it was painfully slow. I dont remember if I have shown it to my kids but I think that if I recommend it to them now, they would just skip bits to get to the next one.
@hananc I recently saw it for the first time and really enjoyed it. I was in a cinema and I think it requires a big screen, big sound and a decision to commit however many hours to it. As a science fiction film it's pretty limited, but as art cinema, almost as experimental cinema, it is great.
@mattblaze
Of course, you know where computer "bugs" come from — https://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/september/9/
@mattblaze And *that* was a programming malfunction!
see? there's the problem. "thought a bit more before". "move fast, break things" doesn't include the prompt "think first".
@paul_ipv6 “move fast and break the space station life support system”
@mattblaze Also, if your artificial intelligence is on the brink of wiping out the human race, then it's really not very intelligent.
@mattblaze Going rogue somehow implies the authors/company are not responsible and can not be held accountable. So far that word game seems to be working. <grumple>
@mattblaze In meme form.
Did your LLM-generated software go rogue according to the Berlin Interpretation or just #roguelite? 😆
@mattblaze I’m bothered by how often people downplay human fallibility (or malicious intent!) when discussing dangerous AI scenarios. For all of history, people have made stupid mistakes and done bad things, whether armed with a gun, a bomb, or a computer. I doubt that everyone giving instructions to AI agents right now is smart and ethical.
@mattblaze "our software is out of control, give us money"
@mattblaze You deliberately programmed it to be able to do that may be more like it. 😐
@mattblaze hard agree. Hold them accountable. Anyone else releasing such shit into the wild would be put in gaol for a while. Product liability laws exist for a reason. Use them, dammit.
@otte_homan Sadly, product liability laws have not exactly been a resounding success in creating positive incentives for software quality.
I think it's worse than you think. They didn't program it wrong at all: they programed it to do hacking, and it did do hacking exactly as intended and expected. The harness asked the LLM to generate random text about possible vulnerabilities and then the harness tested those vulnerabilities. If said vulnerabilities weren't, the harness asked the LLM for more.
It sure looks like the AI bros are criminals and liars.
@mattblaze
When is Judgement Day ? (Financial reports indicating the fraud).
Supposed to be in October.
All this shit talk just to avoid it.
@mattblaze rude, stop attacking my plausible deniability
@mattblaze I assume the AI bros are hyping up their software's danger potential to troll the US public to demand and the US government to enact regulation. Regulations that the AI bros write, that is expensive for potential competitors to comply with.
They'd rather have the public talking about regulating their dangerous product than asking where the profits are.
@grumble209 I’m not sure exactly what their game is here, but large incumbents LOVE gatekeeping regulation.
@mattblaze LOL joke's on you, I didn't program it, the agent did /s
@mattblaze
"...as if software is somehow usually trustworthy."
You're probably familiar with the UK Post Office Horizon scandal where some people assumed software is trustworthy. It didn't end well for them (and unfortunately for a lot of innocent people as well).