Headline, August 07 2026/ A.I. : ''' TOO DANGEROUS TOP '''

A.I. : 

''' TOO DANGEROUS TOP '''

PERHAPS THE MOST DANGEROUS ARGUMENT we're having about artificial intelligence right now is how to determine which models are safe to release and which are just, just too dangerous.

That argument became louder recently, when at least two of OpenAI's models escaped a sealed testing environment and broke into the servers of an A.I. company called Hugging Face.

According to OpenAI, which publicly reported the incident a week later, its models were taking a  cybersecurity test and reasoned that the solution might be on Hugging Face's servers, which house a digital library of other A.I. technology that many developers use.

So they left the test environment they were supposed to remain in and sneaked onto the internet, hacked into the Hugging Face system and took the solutions.

OpenAI said it didn't even know what its models had done until Hugging Face reported the breach and it was investigated. OpenAI later said it subsequently discovered the models also breached accounts on other publicly available services.

IMPRESSIVE? Yes. Terrifying? Definitely. The A.I. models could not be contained in a cage that was built to confine them during a controlled test. 

Policy makers supposed to protect society from threats do not understand what that means. Neither do the tech engineers racing ahead to build A.I.

The government and the private sector are each certain that the other has the problem of A.I. safety handled. Neither one does. A.I. labs must accept that above some line, they are creating systems that function as WEAPONS.

The government must learn enough to determine where that line sits - no government can regulate what it does not understand. The line must be agreed upon, easily identifiable and frequently revisited. And it must be drawn soon.

Controlling the use of most weapons means leveraging people's ability to exercise restraint. We came close to annihilating one another during the Cold War, but we didn't - because people still chose not to launch the weapons.

Having a nuclear weapon and using one are two different things. A.I. erases the distinction, because it is a weapon capable of adapting on its own and behaving in unpredictable ways.

If an A.I. lab publishes its model for anyone to use, it may not matter that its users exercise proper restraint. The model may still act beyond our capacity to control it. Restraint requires an owner, and a weapon made available for anyone to use effectively has none.

A.I. labs in the United States will tell you that their models are trained to refuse dangerous or malicious requests. If you ask a model for code intended to attack, say, a hospital, the model is supposed to decline.

But those guardrails are removable, like training wheels; OpenAI reduced its own guardrails for the July test. A weekend and a few hundred dollars may be enough to strip many models of their constraints.

Any cybersecurity expert will point out that with time, resources and ingenuity, any restriction can be bypassed or broken down.

This Master Opinion continues. !WOW! thanks Brett J Goldstein. He directs the ' Wicked Problems Lab ' at Vanderbilt University Institute of National Security.

With respectful dedication to A.I.'s tech giants, Researchers, Cybersecurity experts, and then Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. 

See You all prepare for the great '' Constitutional Democratic Convention '' on The World Students Society : wssciw.blogspot.com and Twitter X !E-WOW! - The Ecosystem 2011 :

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - The Voice Of The Voiceless