61–70 of 114 posts
It's annoying that the refusal is so obviously false positive.
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.
Last year I won a similar prompt injection challenge ran by a crypto startup against the latest claude and gpt (at the time) and it was considerably more money, from an org with maybe $5-10m in funding.
That and the restrictive NDA kinda tells me they're not looking for serious bounty hunters, who would either want a lot more money or, alternatively, to be able to publish their work; seems like a marketing stunt.
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…
How can you distill a model from a closed-weights model like this? I've never heard of model reverse engineering.
I won't go into how that applies specifically with relation to this article. But you can even use distillation as a service tools. I believe they support this to some extent, though probably not for chatgpt.
I think a year ago or so there was some sort of scandal about other companies doing this to chatgpt. As well as individuals dumping their entire training sets. Lots of ways, hypothetically of course things like this could be and likely are being done right now.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They’re probably expecting biological weapons of mass destruction can be created without too much effort, so are curious to see all the nifty ways people can create biological weapons of mass destruction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely it is marketing. It’s some “we are danger” narrative, from Anthropic Mythos and now OpenAI too.
OpenAI was doing this back with GPT2, saying it was too dangerous to release
These guys have poor track records and compromised incentives.
25k - come on now..