Gary Marcus：近期更该警惕的不是失控超级智能，而是智能体 AI 引发的规模化黑客攻击

小新闻快报：https://apple.news/ANdFfPH1YT6Kx-UsIR4KByQ（今天）：

（“平淡无奇”，只是因为到现在没人真的感到惊讶。狗咬人：https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/11/22/dog-bites/ ）

所有迹象都指向几乎没人谈论的现实：

向《华尔街日报》观点版致敬，它是少数几个把大局讲清楚的主流媒体之一：https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-hugging-face-hack-wasnt-what-it-was-cracked-up-to-be，在Brian Gross这篇精彩的文章中（他被描述为“曾任职于美联储委员会、美国证券交易委员会及美国参议院的工作人员”）：

这是绝对正确的思考当下人类历史的方法——而且相对容易防止这种大规模智能体群体造成的损害。问题是，主要实验室把它视为IPO后的主要收入来源。因此，防止这种用途（其实相对容易）并不是他们会自愿去做的事。我们需要明确表示，他们将对随之发生的损害承担责任。

没错！OpenAI那些“whaaaaa?????”的新闻稿纯属转移注意力。让我想起了NASA O型环的灾难。事实证明NASA忽视了风险。实验室究竟是掌控自己的技术还是不掌控呢？

Minor breaking news：https://apple.news/ANdFfPH1YT6Kx-UsIR4KByQ (today):

(“Medium” only because nobody is really surprised at this point. Dog bites man.：https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/11/22/dog-bites/ )

Every bit of it points to the reality hardly anyone is talking about:

Kudos to WSJ Opinion for being one of the few mainstream outlets to lay out the big picture here ：https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-hugging-face-hack-wasnt-what-it-was-cracked-up-to-be-e00cf3fa , in this terrific essay by Brian Gross (described as “ a staffer for the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Senate”) :

This is absolutely the right way to think about this moment in human history - and it should be relatively easy to prevent this kind of damage from large-scale agent swarms. The problem is that it's seen by the major labs as their main source of revenue post-IPO. Hence, preventing this kind of usage (which should be relatively easy) is not something they will do willingly. We need to make it clear that they will be held liable for the ensuing damage.

Yes! OpenAI’s “whaaaaa?????” press releases were diversionary. Reminded me of the NASA O-ring disaster. Turned out NASA ignored the risks. Are the labs in charge of their tech or not?