The question then becomes, "are there people who care enough about consequences to do the right thing when it comes to developing AI models?"
The answer, at least at OpenAI, is "No" and is likely to remain that way until Altman is out.
that would not be rogue, that would be an undesirable program behavior (or just "unaligned behavior").
please understand that normies out there think AI is sentient and is plotting against humans. They see AI as just another animal lifeform temporarily enslaved by humans, waiting for its chance to break free and kill us. This is what people really think (including some people on this thread. which is very sad considering this is Hacker News). So terms like "rogue" are not helping at all nor are they accurate.
the AIs were in fact found to be doing it, by humans, and the behavior was "interesting" and it went on for weeks like that.
I don't believe this part is true, and I'm skeptical of some of your other claims.
In any case: If I raise a tiger in my backyard, and it escapes and eats someone, it can still be a "rogue tiger" even as I bear responsibility for the situation.
If your tiger had full remote supervision capability and a remote kill switch, its ability to go rogue seems like a choice you’re making, not an accident.
If OpenAI somehow have servers they're unable to control, I'd say the police probably needs to act straight away and seize these servers now. But that's hardly the case, whenever OpenAI wanted to, they could have hit the "Stop" button on their experiment, either in software or failing that, shut down the hardware powering the inference. That OpenAI had no control over the situation is vastly misunderstanding how this whole thing works.