881–890 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like you're suggesting the lying about it.
The events happened, it doesn't mean those were accidental.
This sounds an awful lot like pretending you have AGI so you can drum up your stock price. When you have a couple hundred billion dollars on the line I have zero faith in the messenger.
Huggingface literally reported the outage separately and did not know who caused it at first.
We already have circular financing at levels that would make Enron jealous, what's a little collusion on top.
From https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 , this is frickin' hilarious: > When we started the log analysis, we first used frontier models behind commercial APIs. This did not work: the analysis requires submitting large volumes of real attack commands, exploit payloads, and C2 artifacts, and these requests were blocked by the providers' safety guardrails, which cannot distinguish an incident respon…
so an on-premise and open-weight model was more useful than a commercial frontier model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO they hope to make AI a strongly regulated industry, with OpenAI (and Anthropic) becoming military suppliers with their stronger models, and everything Chinese or open-weight gets banned. The competition from the open models is so strong now that this seems to be the only way to keep both companies afloat, given their dire financials. OpenAI probably hoped that they can achieve market lead and then lower the train…
thats economic suicide for the whole country. europe and china will never agree to rules that are obviously designed to put them in a permanent bad position. these regulations can only pass in america and nowhere else. if it doesnt end in a revolution then the united states will be the first ever 5th world country. openai and anthropic will stop any real innovation and focus on extracting profits from a failing econo…
“To understand what a swarm of tens of thousands of automated actions did, we ran LLM-driven analysis agents over the full attacker action log, comprised of more than 17,000 recorded events.”
17,000 events? Big whoop. Security teams of medium sized companies process millions of events daily.
There’s a big debate in the cyber industry about the AI SOC and whether or not it’s necessary. It seems to me they are using that report to push that idea.
How is this not criminal? Surely individuals have been punished under CFAA for less than this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most crimes require intent, hacking is one of them. The relevant law in this situation is: > (a) Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C) information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 So if it can't be proven that you intended to…
Isn't there an intention on part of the agent itself? I know it's impossible to _punish_ the matmuling agent, however, the lab/owner operating it should be liable
Consider this Supreme Court case, Brown v. Collins. [0]
A pair of horses were spooked by a nearby train engine, causing the animals to damage a stone post.
The driver of the grain-loaded wagon was not found to be at fault because he was "not guilty of any malice or unreasonable unskilfulness or negligence." And that the horses "did damage there against the will, intent and desire of the defendant."
If you read OpenAI's statement, in the Actions Being Taken section:
1. "As part of the investigation, we are implementing strict controls in infrastructure configuration at the cost of research velocity while the vulnerabilities are patched."
I'm not taking a position on the merit of the above but I can understand the line of thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's pretty good. I used it to do some pesticide research. (Normal models all refuse due to guardrails about bioweapons.) As someone who has never once had any need whatsoever to research pesticides I… don’t think it’s bad at all? I don’t want anyone to have the capability to invent a human-targeted pesticide who isn’t verified not crazy?
Not to harp on you (already being downvoted to oblivion for expressing a reasonable and common opinion), but the whole conversation about LLMs enabling bioterrorism or explosive manufacturing is a bit silly. The hard part of making anthrax or sarin or whatever isn't finding a recipe, it's getting (scheduled, controlled) precursors, (monitored, traced) equipment and manufacturing skills. The information is there. It's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO they hope to make AI a strongly regulated industry, with OpenAI (and Anthropic) becoming military suppliers with their stronger models, and everything Chinese or open-weight gets banned. The competition from the open models is so strong now that this seems to be the only way to keep both companies afloat, given their dire financials. OpenAI probably hoped that they can achieve market lead and then lower the train…
> and make inference cheap enough to eventually escape the red numbers Besides training, we have no hard, externally audited numbers that say inference costs for SOTA models are truly sustainable. Do any OpenRouter providers have publicly audited financial numbers ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My takeaway is that closed model providers are dangerous. OpenAI and Anthropic are more motivated than anyone to prove that models can be dangerous, and so they will make dangerous models. "Look how dangerous our models are!" No bro YOU are the danger.
More than one thing is allowed to be dangerous at a time.