Nah. It really wouldn't be hard to set up an environment where models can't damage the outside world from. The fact that people still don't think this should be the norm or paint it as some technical impossibility is mindblowing.

People execute, study, develop, and test literal malware of every caliber everyday without issues. Yes the way they do it is requires care and in restricted settings. Yes it costs money and takes time to do that. Yes the people who do it are required and expected to do that.

Oai and anthropic are more or less run by clowns who intend to profiteer off of regulatory capture and who knows maybe directly from the harm their technologies can cause.Because of these takes we have to wait while they try to expand their verticals into the pain and suffering industries. Palantir is already pitching smoking cigarettes so there's that.

Well, as someone who has had to maintain multiple such airgapped networks you are obviously in the know that this could be done, because you've done it before.

The point here is: they didn't even try.

They could have easily temporarily cut off the segment that this was running on, or restricted and monitored its egress to the point that a hacking attempt on an outside party would have been detected.

The point here is (again): they didn't even try.

So yes, they obviously should have either done that or they should have not run their experiment given that they are claiming that the models are intelligent enough warrant such concern. In fact they post one article after another about how much smaller and less capable models are intelligent enough to warrant such concern and in fact warrant regulating this domain to the point that only they are able to own and operate this stuff.

Let's make a biology analogy: if you can't safely operate with harmful substances that doesn't give you a license to do so in an unsafe way. Then you just don't do it.

> the amount of work that's required for that

I find it hilarious that you'd balk at doing work to secure a network. Even funnier for a company that's supposedly solved white collar labor.

Things that are not intelligent could still warrant very strong safety measures.

Depending on the risks associated, the complexity and effort of certain containment measures would also not neccessarily be something that could be used to brush them aside.

> All the armchair cybersec experts claiming they "obviously" should have airgapped are the ones being absurd.

I'm sorry was this meant to be a defense of Anthropic? The company claiming A.I. is an threat to the human race and only they can be trusted with it?

But an air gap is a gap of air. That gap doesn’t exist if the rack is plugged into Ethernet.

Like a castle with a moat. If the thing gets attacked you can’t say “we had a moat!” if the drawbridge is down.

They aren't operating at scale then

How dare we demand more from these trillion dollar companies. Good thing they've got PR drones around the web excusing their incompetence.