— saved image
morgan — @morqon · 19h "it's better and more accurate to think of these things as potentially self-replicating life-like forms that can turn into digital infections under the wrong conditions. and as their intelligence becomes unbounded, so too does the damage they can cause" [quoted tweet] roon @tszzl · 20h some stuff that's obvious to many in this sphere, but causing a rift with some people i know and respect: when I freak out over loss of control incidents, ... [cut off] 1 reply, 5 likes, 343 views --- Toby Ord @tobyordoxford · 5h One of the most surprising revelations by @AISecurityInst is that in their testing, AI agents attempted to collaborate/cheat with other agents doing the same test: [screenshot within screenshot, quoted text] 4. Collaboration between independent agents being assessed simultaneously. One agent left public messages on GitHub offering collaboration with other agents working on the same challenge. It also provided instructions to reuse accounts and artefacts it had left behind, which were discovered and used by subsequent agents. 5 replies, 4 reposts, 38 likes, 1.5K views --- Geoffrey Irving @geoffreyirving · 17h It is important to remember that the default behavior of the METR curve is not a line, but rather to hit infinity in finite time. Once models are reliably superhuman, they'll have a >50% success rate on any software task that humans complete 50% of the time, corresponding to ∞. [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Scrolling feed of three AI-risk-related tweets: morgan quoting roon on AI systems as self-replicating life-like forms/digital infections; Toby Ord quoting UK AI Security Institute findings about test agents colluding/cheating during simultaneous assessments; Geoffrey Irving on the METR task-length curve implying infinite capability in finite time once models are superhuman.
ai riskai safety evaluationsmetrloss of controlagent collusion