A Breakdown of Responsibility
We can read many
things into this development, but I take a more cautionary view, seeing this
situation as a breakdown of responsibility that presages something worse to
come.
On Tuesday, OpenAI
revealed that some of its most advanced AI models had gone rogue, breaking out
of an apparently contained security system to hack another company, Hugging
Face, and accessing internal performance review documentation. [Wired:
"OpenAI Models Escaped Containment and Hacked Hugging Face"] [BBC News: "OpenAI
Says Its AI Went Rogue and Launched 'Unprecedented' Cyber-Attack"]
Hugging Face did
identify the hack, but could not determine its source. They also recognised
that the activity did not seem to align with human patterns in the way it
invaded their systems. Nonetheless, they contained it.
Control Is an
Illusion
I would be the first
to say that good internal security controls are paramount in the advent of the
AI evolution, where even what seems to be under control can suddenly run the
risk of uncontrolled and inadvertent ruin. This is simply because we do not yet
fully understand the extent of the autonomy AI can exert when left to its own
devices.
The industry is
literally lauding this unprecedented event, treating it not with caution but as
the new norm, something for which we should be prepared and accepting, as
though we ought to be helpless against the machine. At least, that is how I am
reading it for now.
Imagine a Pathogen
Escaped
Now, imagine OpenAI
was a biological warfare company at the cutting edge of science. What essential
controls and regulatory requirements would be placed on their operations?
Then, whilst
experimenting with pathogens whose mortality rate they had no inkling of, in a
secure and quarantined space, a deadly virus of the Ebola variety escaped:
unknown, unseen, and searching for a host. It finds one, a human being, a
representation of Hugging Face. Let that sink in.
Consider that this
virus's mode of transmission could be airborne as well as through contact, even
from clothing or from where the infected person last sat down. How agitated
would the medical establishment and the public be if this came to light? I doubt
we would be glad-handing the unprecedented advent of an incurable organism on
the loose, lauding how biological warfare had suddenly come of age.
I do not think the
analogy is far-fetched. It is very relevant, and it needs to be brought into
the discussion at this time.
The Weight of
Possession
In terms of security,
we can take precautions, be vaccinated, and live healthy lives, but that only
works against known pathogens and conditions.
When it comes to the
unknown and unresearched, we are vulnerable and susceptible. This means that
those who have access to and control of deadly pathogens must be scrupulous,
meticulous, responsible, and utterly careful in handling them.
Any breach or escape
is not merely notifiable; it is a security, health, safety, and critical
situation to be dealt with promptly, with the best minds at work to contain it.
Who Holds
Responsibility?
I posit that an AI
model or agent belongs in the same class as, let us say, the Ebola virus. We
have no vaccines against it, whether it is seemingly benign and working within
a "trusted" company such as OpenAI, or in the hands of others with the
skill and malevolent intent to misuse it. These powerful models are able to
tease out as yet unknown vulnerabilities, and they can exploit them too.
The question then
becomes: who holds the greatest responsibility? The person deploying the AI
model, or the organisation needing to secure itself against the unknown?
Indeed, the responsibility must be shared.
Yet, returning to the
analogy used throughout this piece, if you have possession of a deadly virus,
the responsibility is entirely yours to prevent it from ever escaping its
quarantined setting. This kind of thinking should form part of the
consideration for regulating AI too.
