> OpenAI, for example, thought their sandboxes were good enough. As their AIs got more and more advanced, they kept proving them wrong - sandbox after sandbox.

What I have been reading, was that their sandboxes were so poor that it was pure negligence. I am still waiting to see if some external and neutral cybersecurity company with high reputation would audit their sandboxes and how they are being used.

If it is "extremely powerful" then my concern is not AI going rogue but a concentration of power of the few companies that decide how it is used and distributed not websites getting hacked.

So powerful they can't even do math properly without a staff worth millions writing all the clutches so that they can, wooooowooooooo

> OpenAI, for example, thought their sandboxes were good enough. As their AIs got more and more advanced, they kept proving them wrong - sandbox after sandbox.

Were their sandboxes in-process with the harness? Were they actually better than something like bubblewrap or even docker?

You mean the sandbox that wasn't airgapped from the public internet? The one that wasn't even a separate VM? The one that was barely a chroot? That sandbox?

>Because AI genuinely is an extremely powerful and extremely dangerous

I urge you to consider the elephant in the room you failed to mention if you earnestly believe this then.

In what world is anyone allowed to sell something they expressedly know to be "extremely dangerous" to the public?

Let's say I created a lethal pathogen that I know to be lethal in certain common environments but also know it acts as a "no side-effects" antidepressent for people in certain other environments and I release it knowing full well I can't control it.

When people start dying can I defend myself by saying, "Well I said and documented that it was extremely dangerous and no one came to stop me, so I don't see how you can blame me...If I didn't do it someone else would have."