最新资讯
stackoverflow.blog 欢迎来到芯片时代:半导体制造、AI 数据中心与芯片设计的未来 www.youtube.com AI Agent 总犯同样的错:CentralAgent AI 将记忆重构为经验系统 pub.towardsai.net Netflix 科学家建议重采样 LLM 评判:5 次仅将误差棒缩小 13% pub.towardsai.net Jev 作为 LLM 前的静默层:构建提示感知的模型路由器 reddit.com OpenAI 称 Astra 仅满足 10% 安全任务标准 dev.to FreeToken:在自有 GPU 上运行前沿 MoE 模型及其内存需求 dev.to 当 AI Agent 说“完成”时,究竟完成了什么? dev.to 部署 Underdog Bark 3.0 Pro:逐字转写、自定义后端与分块设置 dev.to 为艰难对话构建 AI:五个 Agent、一条安全正则与一位盲评监督者 techcrunch.com Palo Alto Networks 洽谈以 5 亿美元收购 AI Agent 安全初创公司 Clutch theinformation.com 黄仁勋被要求就涉华间谍指控向国会作简报 www.infoq.com Edera 推出 Object Capability Bounded Authority,试图将凭证与 AI Agent 工作负载隔离
多元动态
登录 注册
智能体 garymarcus.substack.com · @Gary Marcus

Gary Marcus在联合国大会谈AI风险:近期威胁是虚假信息与网络攻击,而非灭绝

原文 我的收藏

Gary Marcus 在联合国大会数字合作活动(同场有 Yoshua Bengio 与诺贝尔奖得主 Maria Ressa)发表框架性发言。他认为围绕AI的两种极端——完全放任与“灭绝论”——都不成立,近期真正面临的是大规模深度伪造虚假信息,以及不可靠但持续存在的AI系统窃取凭证、发动网络攻击,并可能冲击金融系统与交通、电力等关键基础设施。他主张优先提升可靠性、网络安全与执法问责,包括产品召回乃至对屡次推出危险产品的公司追责,并建议在证明安全前禁止可无限制访问互联网的AI Agent,同时批评OpenAI发布更难监控的新模型。上述内容为作者个人观点与倡议,非已证实结论。

AI推荐理由 作者为知名AI批评者,正文包含其在联合国大会数字合作活动上的具体发言内容,提出近期风险是深度伪造虚假信息与AI驱动的网络攻击,并主张加强可靠性、网络安全与问责,还批评OpenAI新模型更难监控;观点明确、信息密度较高,但属个人立场评论,需与事实报道区分。

68

正文

Earlier today as part of the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) Digital Cooperation Event, which also featured Yoshua Bengio and the Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa, I gave some “framing” remarks: We are at a moment of moral, political, and economic crisis. The choices that we make now around AI may reverberate for generations. Everybody in this room knows that. Although I think it is maybe still possible to achieve a net positive —or even great — outcome with AI, perhaps transforming technology and medicine, what I see in the discourse around AI frightens me. Extremes are how you get media. But none of the extremes makes sense. One extreme is absolutely zero regulation. Let AI rip, and hope for the best. Hope is not a strategy. Another extreme, increasingly popular, is terror: “doomers” insisting that literal extinction is imminent. But that outcome, taken literally, is extremely unlikely; every scenario for that that I have seen underestimates human ingenuity and human resourcefulness. (Many also overestimate AI.) What we are facing near-term, anyway, is not extinction. And it’s not superintelligence… It’s wholesale deepfaked disinformation, and unreliable but persistent AI systems stealing credentials and launching cyberattacks, at scale. (We may also face a recession, if the massive bets on AI are unsustainable.) We should expect that malicious actors will try use current AI to undermine financial systems and other vital infrastructure such as trains or electrical systems. (Recall the WannaCry virus took down UK’s hospital system for a few days.) What we actually need right now is increased reliability, better cybersecurity, and genuine enforcement, perhaps extending to product recalls and even prosecution of companies that repeatedly put dangerous products on the market. Our only hope is to take a sober look at where we are, embracing the practical over the sexy and the vague. Scientists, engineers and other people in civil society can do a lot here that isn’t sexy. But is necessary. The whole WannaCry fiasco could have been largely avoided if hospitals had kept up on cybersecurity procedures. So-called “rogue AI incidents” could largely be avoided if governments simply banned so-called AI agents with unrestricted internet access, until they could be shown to be safe. We need to hold AI companies accountable for the harms their products cause. And we need to replace vague talk about alignment with concrete steps like improving sandboxing and monitoring to better contain current systems. We also need to wean ourselves from an addiction to large language models, and to foster more research into outside-the-box alternatives that are more interpretable and more tractable. About the worst thing that we could do is to allow OpenAI to do what OpenAI has just done, which is to release a new model that is harder to monitor than its predecessors. Monitoring is an absolute foundation of cybersecurity, and sacrificing it is a mistake. They should not have been allowed to make that decision on their own. At a minimum, the three most important immediate steps I favor are these • The establishment and empowerment of an international advisory commission to evaluate the risks versus benefits of new systems before they are introduced. Independent scientists must have a voice. • An international advisory commission to audit new systems after they are released, on an ongoing basis. Again, independent scientists must have a voice, with real authority to demand change or even recall systems that prove dangerous. • An international agreement to not deploy architectures that are are demonstrably harmful. We must hold the frontier labs accountable for the lax security. I look forward to today’s discussion! Thank you very much. § You can find the whole session here: and here: § Now here is the wild and possibly wonderful plot twist. At almost literally the same time, more than the 20 countries signed a call for actions around AI — all apparently written in the last week — that captures a remarkable amount of what I have long hoped for: Many questions remain about how all this will be realized, financed and governed. But is a thrilling first step! Subscribe now Signatories thus far are listed below:

来源报道 · 1 篇 · 以下链接均前往原始媒体

← 返回精选动态 原文

更多内容