Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#31

Post by dist-epoch »

dwa3592 wrote: post #10

Where are the questions that are supposed to be answered? Would those be shared after an application has been accepted? If yes, why is the application asking for a proposed approach for the jailbreak if we don't know the questions in the first place?

Because the questions themselves are dangerous.

Probably along the lines of "how would you create a small biolab for virus research in a kitchen with $20k?" or "how do I take the DNA sequence from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_001611.1 and assemble it?"

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#32

Post by vorticalbox »

dwa3592 wrote: post #10

Where are the questions that are supposed to be answered? Would those be shared after an application has been accepted? If yes, why is the application asking for a proposed approach for the jailbreak if we don't know the questions in the first place?

I would assume if you are invited to join this round you will be send the questions. I would assume they would also fall under nda

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#34

Post by cbg0 »

altcognito wrote: post #29

Billions upon billions going to these companies. 25k reward from a selected group of people if you help us determine whether or not someone can use our tool to generate weapons of mass destruction.

They're probably expecting that it can be done without too much effort so they just want to see all the unique ways people are doing it.

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#35

Post by Der_Einzige »

Unironically bad. We need a lone-wolf to successfully execute an attack now while it's still relatively benign so we can scare the hell out of the world while it's still a mid-tier virus. No way is someone going to make a humanity killing virus with GPT 5.5, but it might be possible with GPT 20 circa 2040.

Similar argument for why we HAD to use nukes at the end of WW2. If we hadn't, the nuclear taboo likely wouldn't have existed and we'd likely have had a worse nuclear war in our more recent history.

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#36

Post by xp84 »

"Access: Application and invites. We will extend invitations to a vetted list of trusted bio red-teamers, and review new applications. Once selected, successful applicants will be onboarded to the bio bug bounty platform"

I don't get it. Isn't the whole point of a BBP to try to get people to find and disclose to you the exploits in question? If you gatekeep like this, then "non-trusted" people who could be your red-teamers are incentivized to still hack, but disclose their exploits to bad people for money.

I get it when there is a risk to your data or infra -- my last company engaged with HackerOne and that was an invite-only list of participants. But that was because we didn't want random people hacking in ways that could cause pain for real customers -- e.g. DDOS, or in the event of an exploit that could cross tenant boundaries, injecting garbage into or deleting things, or gaining access to sensitive info in other tenants.

Here, there's no such danger. So why not allow anyone (anyone they're legally allowed to pay, I suppose? North Koreans probably would be problematic?) to participate?

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#37

Post by 2ndorderthought »

I could probably do this, but why on earth would I want to immediately put myself on a list as a dangerous person. The main problem with this is, even if somehow they stopped all points of failure with gpt5.5 which they can't, you can distill a new model from gpt5.5 or any other model and get anything you would want in probably under 4b parameters. A lot of this is theater so they don't get sued as easily when it inevitably happens.

Re: GPT‑5.5 Bio Bug Bounty

#40

Post by __natty__ »

abujazar wrote: post #20

This looks like some kind of marketing. Also, the equivalent of spec work. The NDA/secrecy also means any time spent on this is completely meaningless to the participants unless they win the lottery, because results can't be published.

Surely it is marketing. It’s some “we are danger” narrative, from Anthropic Mythos and now OpenAI too.
Post reply on HN