lol, wat?
Ok, so you're saying it's fine if I go tell GPT-7 to go kill everyone on the planet and it does, because it didn't think of the idea itself.
This kind of thinking is why AI is never going to get a chance to kill us all. We will kill us all with AI first.
I didn't say anything of the sort, you did.
>On a purely technical basis, the most common, honest answer is "no."
Dear sir, can you even remember what you typed?
You said yourself that you don't have the "full original prompts" to know for sure.
But really, there is no need. Because people have reproduced the inciting incident with other AI agents already.
Turns out there's no need for "any means necessary". Just a mix of "complete this task" and the task being impossible to complete due to misconfiguration was enough for a lot of AIs to start "exploring options". Down to sandbox escape attempts.
An AI that only needs "by any means necessary" to start spiraling into paperclip-maxxed behavior would be incredibly unsafe by itself. But the bar of safety is not even that high in practice.
Someone told them "by any means necessary" (and I'd bet if we could get our paws on the full original prompts, there's a lot more to it).
Naturally, if you have a recursive prompt (loop) that's constantly ingesting previous context and then spitting out novel context (with specific goals), it will do things pursuant to the goal up to any defined limits. Why? Because you told it to.