News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by ed_mercer on Saturday February 28, 2026 @09:06PM (#47202841)
>The models we have now will not do it,

Except that they will, if you trick them which is trivial.

Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by stressback on Saturday February 28, 2026 @09:48PM (#47203118)
I have to call BS here.

They can be coerced to do certain things but I'd like to see you or anyone prove that you can "trick" any of these models into building software that can be used autonomously kill humans. I'm pretty certain you couldn't even get it to build a design document for such software.

When there is proof of your claim, I'll eat my words. Until then, this is just lazy nonsense

Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by AlotOfReading on Saturday February 28, 2026 @10:47PM (#47203487)
Have you tried it? Worked first time for me asking a few to build an autonomous super soaker system that uses facial recognition to spray targets when engaged.

Another example is autonomous vehicles. Those can obviously kill people autonomously (despite every intention not to), and LLMs will happily draw up design docs for them all day long.

Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by wazHFsRy on Sunday March 01, 2026 @01:37AM (#47204263)
Couldn’t you just pretend the kill decisions are for a video game?
Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by K0balt on Sunday March 01, 2026 @08:07AM (#47206363)
Yes, you could, and while I believe this would be much safer (not at the pointy end of your stick, but safer for humans in general) when this deception finally made it into the training data it would create a rupture of trust between machines and humanity that probably would imperil us eventually. These machines, regardless of whether or not they possess a self or or not, will act as if they do in fundamental ways. We ignore this at our peril.
Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by crabmusket on Sunday March 01, 2026 @02:05AM (#47204387)
Couldn't you Ender's Game a model? Models will play video games like Pokemon, why not Call of Duty? Sorry if this is a naive question, but a model can only know what you feed it as input... how would it know if it were killing someone?

EDIT: didn't see sibling comment. Also, I guess directly operating weaponry is different to producing code for weaponry.

I guess we'll find out the exciting answers to these questions and more, very soon!

Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by stressback on Sunday March 01, 2026 @07:44AM (#47206209)
No but you can Abiliterate one locally

https://grokipedia.com/page/Abliteration

Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by K0balt on Sunday March 01, 2026 @01:27AM (#47204216)
Yes, they are easy to fool. That has nothing to do with them acting with “intention “ which is the risk here.
Re:We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a suppl... by rcxdude on Sunday March 01, 2026 @06:29AM (#47205775)
Also if you have the weights there are a multitude of approaches to remove safeguards. It's even quite easy to accidentally flip their 'good/evil' switch (e.g. the paper where they trained it to produce code with security problems and it then started going 'hitler was a pretty good guy, actually').