Chance-Device

I don’t see that text in the article at the archive link, nor do I see it in other sources. What I do see is this quote from this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/24/openai-ag...

> At a press conference in Sydney, Marles said the incident itself was “relatively minor” and that it appeared no personal health information had been accessed.

> Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed that an artificial intelligence agent developed by OpenAI infiltrated an Australian government website in June and accessed both public and non-public files.

That’s the first sentence, where’s this stuff about blocks and writing files?

He probably cares more about still having a laptop.

What are you getting at? Nobody’s saying that OpenAI aren’t or shouldn’t be liable for what their agents do. What I am implying above is that this is being blown out of proportion, especially since the article I’m seeing is about a politician saying things that he thinks will poll well with the anti-AI crowd.

Would you care to state what this picture is?

Is there? I’ve only seen the linked article, is there more somewhere?

I agree with your sentiment, and no I’m not surprised, which is why I’m reading this as being “it was sitting on an unsecured S3 bucket but nobody was supposed to directly access it”.

> He said the agent had accessed files that were publicly available as well as material that was not intended for public access.

“Not intended”. I’ll bet you whatever this was it wasn’t even secured, it was just hosted somewhere openly.

Your comment is vacuous. There isn’t any other part of the picture. Trying to advance medicine is inherently good. It doesn’t matter how much you use it for marketing. None of what they have done is fake or useless, it is at worst early.

Glad to hear how you feel about it. However, and this applies more generally than your comment above, what people online often forget is that there is such a thing as both positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t reinforce good behaviours as well as denouncing bad ones, then you don’t get good outcomes.

That isn’t actually the point, the point is that the AI companies should be made to see that doing things for society is the only way they get any kudos.

If they want to compete to be seen as the good guy, by all means let them. But it means actually having to be the good guy, in at least some respects.

The point I am making is if these companies are going to compete and spend more and more money for PR, then they should do it in a way that benefits society, which paying influencers does not do.

Let me know when OpenAI starts actively trying to cure diseases.

Better than doing this, just in case you hadn’t heard: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-open-ai-influencer-ma...

Yes, I think there aren’t an equivalent number of Claude influencers on social media.

Is there an equivalent headline for Anthropic of this?: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-open-ai-influencer-ma...

Read the comment. This is cynical and bad because they’re going to advertise that they’re trying to do something socially beneficial.

It’s the top rated comment in the thread. Somebody tried to do something good, this is the response.

This pisses me off severely.

Really now, everything is bad? Trying to cure diseases? Talking about it? That’s bad somehow! Let me sit here on my ass and do nothing instead.

I think this approach of actually doing useful science is better PR than hiring an army of influencers to shill for you, OpenAI style.

Generally speaking, hiring an army of influencers to shill for you results in bad PR, and comments like this one.

Not very, I had a tiny dataset compared to a production run, I used a bunch of 3D renderings to augment the images with transparency. It worked pretty well given the scale.

Native transparency isn’t so hard to do by the way, I made an image AE (I don’t say VAE deliberately as none of these are VAEs, I don’t know why they keep being called that since the variational part is completely absent) that supported this about two years ago as a hobby project. I haven’t really been following the space recently, I’m surprised it’s taken so long for this to come out if it’s a first.

It’s the message board(s) that the OpenAI agent swarm was able to communicate through via GET requests. I guess a bunch of vibe coded weekend projects based around this idea have now dropped.

The absolute value of those numbers matters a lot. The cloud providers could be 100 times cheaper than running locally, but if it still costs say, 10 cents a day to run locally, you’re not going to care about this difference very much. And what you keep in privacy out-weighs the trivial savings afforded by the cloud provider.

I do! And goodness no, nice and all as they might be I’d go mad if they were the only art I could ever consume ever again!

There’s the idea of preferences and revealed preferences. People say their preferences and then their actions show what they really prefer. I suspect AI generated content, if curated by a human, would end up being people’s revealed preferences. There are a lot of bad artists and writers and whatever out there, AI would handily beat them.

I think at least for your niece’s drawings example, you’d probably prefer AI art if you had to choose one or the other until the end of time, not just one or two drawings that go on your refrigerator.

> By many people’s criteria it automatically is worse, because part of what they value in art is thinking about the artist and their intentions behind their creation

That’s a bit separate to what I’m talking about, but I don’t think there are many of these people. I think this whole thing is about AI anxiety coupled with American social norms, and as soon as one of those things changes the artists are going to be left out in the cold again.

I don’t think so, even if the whole “AI exponential” idea is wrong, that’s just the shape of the curve. There still is a curve. Even if these things take 50 years to happen instead of 5 (which would be better and which I doubt will be the case) it still happens eventually. I think the current capabilities of AI are enough of a heuristic for us to assume this is going to happen.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The labelling of a thing as “AI Generated” or “AI Assisted” makes the viewer perceive it as worse in quality. And they really do think it’s worse.

It’s similar to a well known finding about price: people value things that are more expensive more, and tend to think they are of higher quality. You can give people the same thing for a high price or for free and they’ll say the high priced one is amazing the free one is lacklustre.

It’s like an optical illusion driven by labelling.

Sure, but if we run AI all the way to its endpoint, it’s not just about window repairmen anymore. Our current notions about economics assume there’s always another job class for people to move to, here eventually there won’t be.

So here you never have to pay anyone to fix your windows, because they fix themselves, but conversely nobody will give you money to fix their windows! And then you have to pay your self-fixing windows a rent in tokens without an income.

> This is a form of the broken window fallacy.

I’m not sure I see it, can you elaborate?

People aren’t feeling the benefits of AI. Where there are any benefits, they aren’t causing prices to decrease or supply to go up, instead the excess value is being absorbed by profit taking.

If most people aren’t shareholders but instead workers whose jobs are threatened by AI, we should expect this response.

It has nothing to do with artists, it has everything to do with trying to mount a collective response to the apparent threat, poorly expressed as crowds tend to do.

Ok, don’t go because of the poster. Miss out.

Might it? I’m not sure I’m following you. Just because the cerebellum is involved?