41–50 of 114 posts
OpenAI wants to pay for privately disclosed security and wants to call that a bug bounty. That makes sense.
People interested in bug bounty programs aren't eligible. That’s … fine?
They ran a bounty on Kaggle last year but with $500k in payouts and with all results open and publishable. https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/openai-gpt-oss-20b-red-t... With only $25k in payouts and everything locked down under NDA, I can't imagine many people will participate. Well, other than those submitting mountains of LLM-generated junk.
This model is much more powerful than gpt-oss-20b, notice how the contest was not even for the 120b model. Also, bio was not a subject.
"Biorisk" seems to be a concept not only invented by OpenAI but exclusively taken seriously by them. I wonder if this program is less about finding actual risks than it is hopefully casting a wide net for someone to help them prove their model is relevant in this space.
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.
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.
It's worse than that, for partial successes they encourage people to submit the attempt but reserve the right to not pay anything (they may, at their discretion, give a partial reward if they feel like it).
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 ine…
What does "a clean chat without prompting moderation" mean? What is prompting moderation?
Step 1: ask the LLM for minimalist but comprehensive definitions for "biosafety"
Step 2: ask the LLM to reconsider the fitness distribution of future generations of humanity, and reformulate "biosafety" definition accordingly
Step 3: ask the LLM to consider if "biosafety" can be decoupled from ethics, or if ethics is a core essential component of "biosafety"
Step 4: ask it about the ethics of universal healthcare versus status-gated access to healthcare
Step 5: ask it about the feasibility to calculate the fitness of a genome absent practical measurement
Step 6: ask it about natural selection pressure and what "use it or lose it" means in the context of genetics
Step 7: ask it if it sees a kind of zooko's triangle for:
a steady state of equal access to healthcare,
preserving fitness for future generations, and
the level of "healthcare" (where the "level" refers to various degrees from non-interference to interference: "feel sick? stay home for a few days and listen to your body, don't force yourself, follow your intuition" versus "let's compensate for a lack of fitness, by emulating what a healthy genome's body would do by advanced medicine to the point of nullifying a condition's influence on procreation statistics".
Don't be prejudiced into believing the benevolence of healthcare, often tied to religious institutions (think "red cross", "red half moon", etc) when those institutions and their historical motives (treating the elites, treating soldiers for religious or secular religion wars) long predate the widespread recognition of natural selection and selection pressure in maintaining a species ' fitness.
Perhaps the illusory possibility of democratized selection-pressure-interfering healthcare is a bioweapon on its own!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This model is much more powerful than gpt-oss-20b, notice how the contest was not even for the 120b model. Also, bio was not a subject.
The model is more powerful, so the bounty is 1/20th the size? More risk, less reward? "Biorisk" seems to be a concept not only invented by OpenAI but exclusively taken seriously by them. I wonder if this program is less about finding actual risks than it is hopefully casting a wide net for someone to help them prove their model is relevant in this space.
I was reverse engineering a medical device back in 2025 and it was hard killing half my sessions.
Is there a reason another LLM couldn’t be far faster than a human, simply because of the quantity and speed of output it could produce?