HN

Comments (38)

• Jordan-117
  Frog put the AI in a sandbox."There." he said."Now it will not hack any more companies.""But it can escape the sandbox." said Toad."That is true." said Frog.
• Menu

  mjd
  For those not familiar with it already, the writing and art style are a well-executed pastiche of Arnold Lobel's ”Frog and Toad” books.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_and_Toad
• davebranton
  "The End"No. It is not the end.
• cauch
  Explaining the reality with this approach may lead to misunderstandings. Especially when it comes to anthropomorphism.I have 2 questions.1. The text says "the robots were designed to be persistent" and links to an article that show that the word "persistent" was used by OpenAI. But "persistent" has several meanings: a. non temporary or non volatile (like "persistent memory"), b. will not give up and come back again and again, c. will stay focus and explore the unexplored possibilities while other models abandon at this stage.From what I recall, the meaning used by OpenAI is not 'a', but there is still a semantic difference between 'b' and 'c'. I may myself have created algorithms that I called "persistent" because they were exploring or retrying more than the previous algorithm, but it is misleading to pretend that this algorithm was "persistent" in the human sense of the term. 'b' is more the human sense of the term, were we imagine someone not giving up even if people say no, while 'c' is less anthropomorphic and may mean that the people wished to improve the algorithm so it does not stop at the first little hurdle but did not wish to make it "never give up".Does someone know which nuance is more correct?2. The text also presents the situation as if the robots found the solution but then went out of their way to steal the explanation in order to hide their cheating. But it is different from a situation where the agents task was "provide the solution and how we can get there". In this case, the reason the agent still continued is just because the task was not complete yet.I'm not trying to defend AI or OpenAI, on the contrary, I'm quite sceptical with all the anthropomorphism and the fact that the agents are described as "little individual trying to solve a task" rather than looping algorithm that explore different approaches to reach a given goal, the same way water does not look for holes in order to leak, it just follows the path of least resistance.
• darepublic
  This was entertaining and illuminating for me. Particularly the ending where sam frogman et al once again refuse to make sure the puzzles are solvable and just create the circumstance where only more profound "mischief" will permit the machines to escape their little Sisyphusian circumstances. It reminds me of how bacteria become antibiotic resistant due to being forced through a tight sort of tunnel requiring evolution to get through
• Menu

  infinitebit
  has the estate of arnold lobel been compensated for this?
• Menu

  jmugan
  Great story! I read it in one sitting.
• sgammon
  fun and beautifully done. i learned a bit about the breach from this
• dodecacat
  Brilliant!
• djriley
  Cute, I love this style! It's like a long Aesop's Fable! I can't wait for the sequel!
• marktl
  So good
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  rnddmmdmf
  [flagged]
• ghostpepper
  I like the part where Frog and Toad are held accountable instead of blaming the machines they built.. oh wait
• technojamin
  This feels braindead and seems AI-generated.
• Menu

  devindotcom
  fun story. missing some punctuation, though: primarily commas at the end the first parts of split dialogue.
• Menu

  carsoon
  This is a very interesting news/story format. Honestly it is highly engaging and gets the point across about what happened.I think speed of learning for young generation can explode given this tech as "simple childrens stories" can be injected with real world events, history, mathematics, carreer/business interests.School was dreadfully boring for me even though it was quite easy but I do wonder how my speed of learning would have been different given personalized and more engaging materials.
• Menu

  grey-area
  Why does it say ‘written by’ and ‘pictures by’, was this made without AI? Given the domain and the overpolished feel that seems unlikely. At least give Claude or whatever a credit if that is what did most of the work, and how about a credit for the original author, who also arguably did more of the work in inventing a world than these two.I would like to point out that the original stories focussed on frog and toad and their relationship, so this is an unwelcome distortion of them - why not make up your own world if you want to talk about little machines. Perhaps the little machines could be making a book for the author with a stolen artwork and literary style?The first story seems a pretty inaccurate summary of an incident which involved gross negligence on the part of OpenAI and may well have involved agents intended to cooperate, we just have no idea of the exact setup (apart from that the sandboxing was laughably insecure and the monitoring nonexistent or performed by ‘agents’).Do we have any evidence the machines exchanged useful messages or had any such discussions as in the story? The messages I saw were gibberish. Would love to see evidence of discussions, it’d be interesting.Why are people so enamoured of analogies for LLMs - they actively obscure some details (a sandbox with internet access is not like a physical sandbox) and distort many others? Perhaps this is why - you can make an analogy say whatever you want, even if the facts are very different.