Sure, if you remove almost all of my comment my argument disappears.

To spell things out for people that don't know about the topic: Zitron is neither an expert on the topic, nor a credible source of information: https://techreport.ngo/ai-ml/how-accurate-have-ed-zitron-s-a...

The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment. If I tell an AI to start producing paperclips, it might start producing paperclips by doing unintended things. Technically, recycling the metal from all the world's bridges would assist in making more paperclips, but I never intended that. That's where my analogy to the post comes from- Openai intended the model to hack, but did not intend for it to hack HF. Do you think the fact 'recycling metal into paperclips' may have been in the training data is relevant to the thought experiment? Similarly here, it's orthogonal to the lessons from the HF hack and only brought up here seemingly to make it a fight over whether the models are really "autonomous"

> Who cares how the LLM learned to hack things? Doesn't really change the facts of what happened.

Seems like a pretty clear and succinct argument. If your only counter is to complain about tone, you’re losing.

That is all that Ed Zitron deserves lol. Completely unserious person. Really on the same intellectual level as the flat earthers at this point. And at both we may simply point and laugh.

It’s shared context for anyone familiar with the field.