Why are you assuming that the other kinds of testing aren’t happening?
Rather, I'm assuming that the "Is there protection in place for when the AI tries to backdoor github projects?" test was, if it was done at all, insufficient.
I mean, yes, I'm being glib and laughing at you a bit. But, dude... If your point is that isolation testing of AI is fundamentally impossible, then that's just silly. As pointed out upthread, an airgap would have (1) been trivial to implement and (2) extremely effective.
Would an airgapped test have led to this outcome? What would you have learned about the model’s ability to social engineer and attack GitHub? Sure you can argue for better monitoring during the test, which should have happened, but if the first time the model sees the “real world” is after launch in the hands of customers then you are in for a disaster.
Comments
Rather, I'm assuming that the "Is there protection in place for when the AI tries to backdoor github projects?" test was, if it was done at all, insufficient.
I mean, yes, I'm being glib and laughing at you a bit. But, dude... If your point is that isolation testing of AI is fundamentally impossible, then that's just silly. As pointed out upthread, an airgap would have (1) been trivial to implement and (2) extremely effective.
Would an airgapped test have led to this outcome? What would you have learned about the model’s ability to social engineer and attack GitHub? Sure you can argue for better monitoring during the test, which should have happened, but if the first time the model sees the “real world” is after launch in the hands of customers then you are in for a disaster.