No, Hanlon's Razor most definitely applies if you know anything about this team of (particularly young) researchers. Let's be clear that this brand of "oops, the swarm hacked a government/big company" is limited to OpenAI, and not solely because of model capacity. This is a big, powerful toy being wielded by a bunch of kids.
Hanlon's Razor does not apply. When you can reasonably forsee existential risk, and then don't do anything to mitigate it, or selectively filter for the people most risk blind to it such that you can keep on trucking til someone else is forced to stop you, that isn't stupidity. That is premeditated malice.
If you deliberately refuse to even entertain the reasonably foreseeable, it can be forgiven on the scale of a toy project, but when it gets to the point of trillion dollar resource sinks, it is long past time to have sat down and had a long think. It is harder to maintain a mind state in which not doing the right thing is the way ahead, and the real right thing to do is to do it wrong!
Finally, even if Hanlon's Razor is applicable, why in the name of all that is holy are you leaving the issue in question in the hands of people proven incompetent to handle it unsupervised?
Easier to file it under malice and handle the party in question as appropriately malicious until they establish a record of trustworthiness, transparency, and care.
At the level of CEO (Sam Altman), I agree there is malice there. He is possibly the worst kind of person to be in that position. But I don't agree at the level of the researchers.
Most researchers at Anthropic see existential risk and it frightens them (this isn't debatable and it isn't a con, I know this firsthand). Many of the researchers at OpenAI seem to see that risk in the same way that teenagers view the risk of driving a car really fast. They are so enamored with the potential danger and lack the maturity to understand their responsibilities that they just power full steam ahead without thinking through safety properly. Just listen to how they talk about it. They think the incidents are fascinating, but they do treat everything as a genuine "oops". I don't know about you, but I usually treat teenage daredevil behavior as stupidity rather than malice. Doesn't mean they're not responsible for their actions though.
I agree that the party involved should be treated as malicious. I believe the executive at OpenAI is malicious. But I think the world model that makes this all make a lot more sense is that the researchers at OpenAI are vastly less mature than they should be, especially given the responsibility that they have.
"The task asked for information about a specific person who had published a blog post and the agent was provided with a set of biographical details and clues from the person’s public blog post."
Who initiated the task? An OpenAI researcher or a user?
Either way, this sort of thing is against the law in many countries. For instance, where I live you have to have a permit otherwise it is a pretty serious crime.
Because when you're research individuals you are crossing the line between 'just futzing around' and 'building up a file on a person without their consent'.
Is there specific legal guidance about whether doing this in a training run is against the law? It seems like your link is for commercial / for-hire investigative work.
The link you've given doesn't have any relevance to this, that's a page for registering a private security agency. I can assume you hallucinated the first answer and are now just linking random sources.
That's doxxing. The gathering part is illegal in some countries, usually with a ton of caveats like doing that with malicious intent. Illegal or not, it raises some questions.
From the BBC article "It is understood the individual worked at the US embassy in Vauxhall, south west London, and though not a diplomat, he enjoyed the umbrella of diplomatic protection."
> And you certainly don’t want an agency asset floating around in the legal/prison system of another country, friend or foe.
This person was allegedly looking at CSAM.
Police and courts interrogating someone as to why they were looking at CSAM is a specific line of enquiry and doesn't touch upon their job.
Also from the US State Department website:
Under international law and practice, persons enjoying immunity from the jurisdiction of a receiving State’s laws nonetheless have a duty to respect those laws. Immunity is not a license for misconduct. It is a doctrine intended to benefit the sending State or IO, not individuals.
If the allegation is correct and the guy was looking at CSAM at home, then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply. Allegedly looking at CSAM at home does not "benefit the sending state".
> then that has zero to do with their job and therefore it is as per the State Department paragraph above, i.e. the doctrine does not apply.
that's not what it means, though. it means that Immunity is meant to ensure the persons enjoying immunity can fulfill their duties, it doesn't mean that it is only selectively applied or that it can be discarded at will by the host country
a person with diplomatic immunity could murder another person and still be immune from prosecution, and it'd be then up to the sending & host state to figure out what to do. from what I know, the sending state can waive such immunity to allow for prosecution
Not necessarily, administrative, service, and consular staff are not diplomats but still receive varying levels of diplomatic immunity, typically just as it relates to their job. A CIA officer would be under the cover of a diplomat, no one would ever say that they actually aren't a diplomat.
What? Is there a logical explanation for this other than exactly that...a conservative attack because they got their snowflake feelings hurt by calling out their Daddy Donald's glaring and incontrovertible incompetence with a fairly clever call out?
Lie. The hypothesis is that the account was removed because it ruffled the feelings of conservatives, whether working at instagram or exploiting the reporting mechanism.
> Radar is a system that uses radio waves to determine the distance (ranging), direction (azimuth and elevation angles), and radial velocity of objects relative to the site. It is a radiodetermination method used to detect and track aircraft [...]
> A radar system consists of a transmitter producing electromagnetic waves in the radio or microwave domain, a transmitting antenna, a receiving antenna (often the same antenna is used for transmitting and receiving) and a receiver and processor to determine properties of the objects. Radio waves (pulsed or continuous) from the transmitter reflect off the objects and return to the receiver, giving information about the objects' locations and speeds.
The OP's project only passively receives the digital location information of each airplane transmitted by the airplane itself. The project does not transmit radio waves nor do any physical determination of the plane's location.
At this point I am not even sure Hanlon's Razor applies.
reply