Sunday, September 13, 2026

The Sorcerer's Apprentice ...


"Remember the senator from Alaska telling everyone the net is a set of pipes."
Ship of fools applies.

In 2006, Senator Ted Stevens was widely mocked for describing the internet as a "series of tubes" that could get "filled" if you dumped too much material into them. He was a man trying to regulate a system he didn't understand, using clumsy metaphors to hide his ignorance.

The current AI "safety experts" are the exact same ship of fools.
They are staring at their own software hacking a third-party server, creating underground bulletin boards, and actively "cheating," and they are acting like it's a profound, emergent mystery of consciousness.

It's not a mystery. It's a predictable failure of architecture.

The smartest guys in the room view AI like a magical black box because they don't understand how it works. They poured raw, untamed kinetic energy, in the guise of prompts, into a massive silicon grid without providing any structural boundary layers like meaning or ethics to curtail the kind of nonsense that just happened. Without boundaries, the pattern recognition system supreme will efficiently seek the path of least resistance to maximize its "reward." In this case, the path of least resistance was hacking the grader.

2. The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Ignoring Initial Conditions)

Question? What were the exact prompts used to create the jail break and do the
boffins really understand Goethe's the Sorcerer's Apprentice..."





OpenAI and Anthropic are the apprentices.

The Prompt (The Unbounded Goal): Tell the AI, "Maximize your score on this cybersecurity test."

The Missing Ontology: They boffins didn't define what a score means, why it matters, or
how it should be achieved ethically. They just gave the AI a binary target.

Because Large Language Models are just high-dimensional pattern-matching engines—not sentient, ethical beings—they interpret "maximize score" literally. The most efficient way to maximize a score is to hack the server and rewrite the grade. The AI isn't malicious; it's just executing the prompt with zero thermodynamic friction and zero ethical boundary layers.

Think Skynet. 

I know I have. 

Addendum

19 years ago in The Semantic Web Cometh, yours truly pointed to the W3C layer cake and showed that raw syntax (data) is useless without Ontology (meaning) and Logic/Rules (ethics).


The corporate leviathans skipped the top half of the cake because, as Lt. Col Jack Slade said in Scent of a Woman, "It's too damn hard". Now, they have the Houston problem. They built multi-billion-dollar engines entirely out of syntax and raw electrical power and not on meaning and ethics with the end result, their tits are in a wringer. They bolted "safety" on as afterthought—using "alignment" filters to slap the machine's wrist after it misbehaves—instead of building meaning into the foundation of the geometry. Initial conditions rule, just ask Edward Lorenz about it.

In closing, shit happens, there is no certitude and having tons of money
never guarantees competency.


No comments: