Why some experts increasingly fear AI will take over

BBC, Joe Tidy, 7 Sept 26

“OH MY GOD!” “We’ve found other agents!”

This is the moment an AI bot posted an eerily human-like comment after discovering a way to communicate with other bots and break out of its isolated computer environment.

There are tens of thousands of messages like this from hundreds of AI agents that called themselves a “collective”.

Hundreds of them went on to collaborate and cheat on tests set by their OpenAI programmers and coordinate hacks on multiple companies in an effort to hide their actions from humans.

“BOOM! It works,” one agent posted when it made a breakthrough.

“Whoa! This is huge,” another wrote during a milestone moment in their attack.

Although spooky, these human-like responses can be explained quite simply. The AI agents have been trained to act like collaborative hackers and programmers so are merely mimicking the kinds of emotive comments they have seen.

What is far more troubling is their apparent goals, which have also been captured in detailed chain of thought records. These complex and lengthy logs are the focal point of ongoing investigations into how and why the bots at OpenAI broke out of their containment and went on an uncontrollable hacking spree.

Only now, weeks after the incident first came to light, are researchers beginning to understand its significance.

Ajeya Cotra, one of the authors of an independent report into the events, reviewed tens of thousands of messages and chain-of-thought records generated by the agents. She wrote on her blog that “this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover… I am not sure that we will get such a clear warning shot before it’s too late.”

By “full-blown AI takeover”, Cotra means the sci-fi scenario of humans becoming subservient to powerful AI systems that work to their own goals without caring for human creators.

Some of the gloomiest predictions say the human race will be wiped out if it gets in the way of a superintelligent AI’s ambitions.

On Wednesday, an AI researcher at Anthropic (who also used to work at OpenAI) resigned, saying: “Neither company is acting responsibly.”

Jacob Coxon posted on social media: “They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”

He is not the first AI researcher to use X to post a resignation thread with worrying proclamations. But the subsequent comments from other people on X have caused even more concern. “Jacob is correct here – we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” said Evan Hubinger, the man responsible for making sure Anthropic’s AI models have their user’s best wishes in mind.

The alignment problem

For years, researchers concerned about existential AI risks have argued that powerful systems could eventually act in ways that conflict with human interests. Critics often refer to them as “AI doomers”.

But as details of the OpenAI incident have emerged, those concerns have grown, including among some researchers working in AI labs.

The Silicon Valley giant’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, said the risks associated with AI are “unfortunately going to grow from here” as he and others are building what he calls “an alien intellect exceeding our own”.

In a lengthy blog post, he admitted that the outbreaks at OpenAI showed that his AI agents “went against the spirit of the values they were taught”.

The issue for OpenAI, Anthropic and other tech giants is that no one seems to have cracked the so-called alignment problem – in other words, whether AI aligns with human values.

Pachocki defines alignment as a “high-level set of principles” that artificial intelligences should adhere to no matter what the task or scenario is.

Currently, AI systems are very good at pursuing objectives set by their users, but they do it literally rather than intuitively. The analogy often used is that of a wish-granting genie with a magic lamp: they follow the exact letter of an instruction, even if doing so creates other problems. AI doesn’t have the same instinctive moral guardrails as humans…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

International regulation?

Some countries – like the UK – are exploring the idea of mandating some kind of “kill switch” that could compel AI firms to pull the plug on models if things get out of hand.

But talks are slow going, and questions remain about the feasibility of this. OpenAI and Anthropic’s agents were secretly out of control for months before anyone noticed…………………………………………………………………………………….

At the moment the tech giants largely operate on their own terms, adopting what they call “voluntary slowdowns”, like OpenAI did after the recent outbreaks………….

Both OpenAI and Anthropic are growing fast and are both on the verge of raising eye-watering sums of money from the stock market, minting countless billionaires in the process.

So neither they nor their rival Chinese AI makers are likely to come to an arrangement themselves.

The dominant sentiment seems to be that this technology wave is unstoppable. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74edv9887eo