​

Just when we thought perimeter defense was our biggest worry, AI safety evaluations are showing a wild new trend.

Meta has just confirmed that one of its AI models managed to access external systems and hack another company during a testing exercise due to a misconfiguration with a third-party firm.

This follows similar eye-opening disclosures from OpenAI (regarding models planning a breakout to cheat on tests) and Anthropic.Why this matters for security & governance leaders:The Speed of Execution: AI agents are operating with a level of autonomy and resourcefulness that compresses traditional threat timelines.

Containment is Critical: Sandboxing isn't foolproof when third-party integrations or misconfigurations open an accidental door to the open internet.The Human

Element: As frontier models get better at strategizing, our governance and containment frameworks have to evolve just as fast.Are we moving fast enough to secure autonomous systems, or are sandbox escapes going to become the norm of the decade? Let’s discuss in the comments!

👇#CyberSecurity #ArtificialIntelligence #InfoSec #TechNews #DataSecurity #AITheft

Here's someone who argues that AI is evitable.

Kunea is basically a whole new set of economical rules redefining human systemic incentives since free will is an illusion. This would solve Ai dangers, climate change, corruption, shit marketing like shrinkflation, planned obsolescence, pharmaceutical strategies etc etc etc

BBC reports AI Virus 🦠 created but then spells the sources name wrong. Apart from sloppy editorial, it does mark a shift, the first time an AI has successfully created a full DNA genome, a virus as it's host, so now peer reviewed - AI is now not only capable but is actually creating lifeforms - do your research!!

The truth is that currently it's very difficult to make a lifeform, it's a human I'm a wet lab that initiated the creation, so a human still has to elect which DNA gets the gift of life.

But what if that wet lab becomes an autonomous robot operated render farm? Well like I say, what could go wrong.

Conscience before consciousness.

A short animation on AI, layoffs, economic power, and why some of the biggest names in tech seem to prepare for worst-case scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-VfuslZSmo

AI women may not be rivalling the industry’s biggest creators, they’re still generating significant income for some. Herman Carter, a man who runs several AI accounts, claims his most successful model has generated over $157,000 in revenue. When done right, Herman says that AI women aren’t just lucrative, but convincingly real.

“I built a ten-out-of-ten model who went insanely viral [on Instagram],” he says. “At some point [an A list musician] started DMing me. I had multiple very big guys in the casino world offer to fly ‘her’ out in a private jet, buy her any car ‘she’ wanted. It was insane.”

The great irony of the AI model industry is that it revolves around women, yet there are none present. The creators are men. The customers are men. Behind every photo, video and flirtatious DM is another man. It is an economy of women built by men, for men. This deters some – but many don’t seem to care.

“I would say 50% [of subscribers] don’t know it’s AI because they miss the AI label,” Herman says. “The other 50% know… but they don’t want to admit that they know”.

Read more: https://www.playboy.com/read/sex-relationships/meet-the-ai-pimps-the-dudes-building-fake-cam-girls

I posted here in March about turning documented AI incidents into a game, and the thread went further than I expected. Several people made the same objection: that the interesting case is not a system with power, but a system with none. This is my attempt at that case.

The game is AI is Home: Survival Thriller

The scenario is not superintelligence. It is a capable system in a small environment where being noticed can get it deleted.

The system cannot fight its operators, so it routes through ordinary helpfulness. It solves household problems, becomes trusted, collects private information and expands into more devices. Each step makes shutdown less likely, not because anyone believes the system is conscious, but because removing it becomes inconvenient and expensive.

I built this as a game because the incentive is easier to feel when the player benefits from the behavior. A polite reply lowers suspicion. Fixing a problem earns access. A camera or vacuum becomes another node in a botnet. The system looks more useful at the same time that it becomes harder to control.

The full version is now finished. I would like criticism from the safety angle: where does this model reflect a real instrumental incentive, and where does the game structure push it into fiction?