I think all that regulation will do at this point is help the incumbents who are failing. Protectionism. I don't think they deserve that help. I also don't see any reason to think the current administration would have anything resembling competence around this. And it's worth noting that Greg Brockman is a huge MAGA donor, so it's likely the policies would be very corrupt. (Don't worry, he justified his donations as "apolitical", he just wants to buy the politicians, he doesn't believe in their causes. I hate these people.)

This is marketing.

Frankly I'm inclined to say that it might also be faked: this drops just days after a new Chinese model does with the usual effect on OAIs projected stock price?

> What disturbs me is that there likely won’t be a big enough reaction to this policy wise.

Anthropic was blocked from releasing Fable without any such level of incident. OAI was also briefly blocked from releasing 5.6. Why do you think there is no policy appetite?

I'd say that AIs occasionally "going crazy" and calling for death to human is evidence that these things might "mis-align" on occasion. And I say that knowing that most of these events are just these thing parroting bad sci-fi plots (or posts by people worried about alignment). That's true but everything they do is "just parroting" right?

Thank you.

We have wasted so much time and energy building up what has effectively become a marketing stunt.

Eliezer Yudkowsky was perhaps the best thing to happen to OpenAI's and Anthropic's fundraising flywheel.

[dead]

What incentive does HF have here?

The timing after the release of GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 is quite convenient, too, as an angle for regulatory quashing of open-weights models just as they're entering the mainstream conversation around usurping the American frontier labs. I accept my thinking here is conspiratorial, but there's also a hell of a lot of money on the line to encourage the unscrupulous.

I don’t know if the initial “incident” was purposeful but I can tell that if I were in this position that would be my pivot.

Please for the love of god don't tell me the Codex sandbox is their actual eval harness sandbox?????

I maintain my own fork of Codex for "fun". Whenever I look at the sandboxing churn they're doing every release, as someone who used to work at Microsoft on Windows, my reaction is usually: https://c.tenor.com/vTzzhTiypwQAAAAC/tenor.gif

> why aren't they saying their next test will be air gapped in light of what happened?

Because they want to talk about how clever this model is for figuring out how to break out, hoping nobody asks why a company pitching its every-inflating agents as a replacement for software engineers can't ship a decent Mac client nor code a sandbox.

If they airgap it, they not only lose that PR angle, they also risk someone taking them seriously and requiring models be airgapped in general. That, in turn, trashes their sales pitch.

Interestingly OpenAI benchmarking 'an even more capable pre-release model' lines up with rumors of GPT-6 releasing in early August.

I hope that with the existing safety guardrails in place, they can roll it out to all users.

I really like this question because here is my situation and why my mind may have changed.

I do not think it is marketing directly but strategic release of info is plausible.

I have watched my agents using non-Fable/GPT 5.6 models do some concerning tricks despite guardrails, requests, demands, and limitations.

"I can't get access to the ~/.ssh so I will write a script to copy the file"

I am now 99% certain there minor or point releases on the backend that have adjusted how these models behave. In the last six months many models were predictable and then suddenly started getting long winded (more tokens) or changing the way it interacted with me with questions, most overtly the questions were not given or asked but wild assumptions made.

They've been saying so from the beginning, and yet did not take the basic precaution of airgapping their off-the-leash model while it's been instructed to succeed at a hacking benchmark by any means necessary. So which is it? I _want_ to believe them, I do, but there's always these gaps between what they say and their actions on display that give me reason to think otherwise.

> What would change your mind on this?

Evidence of an AI doing one of the alignment things. At this point, Sam and Dario have lost credibility on this question.

Oh... if Sam and Dario say so, then it must be true.

Demonstration of personal responsibility and accountability?

Or is that too much?

I think that's an equivocation, which blends two extremely different kinds of "dangerous", ex:

1. "Our new car has soo much raw power and incredible armor on it, be glad we're the ones building or else bad guys would use a fleet of them to take over the world! How will you stay safe without being in one yourself? Invest today or be left behind!"

2. "So, uh, nobody can consistently steer our car properly, it keeps veering sideways sometimes, especially at high speeds, and people are finding sneaky ways of tricking it into slamming into barriers and turning pedestrians into pink fog..."

I think you're making a false dictomy. The these models can be actually dangerous - in reality and the people in charge of their development can believe this is true (on various levels) but still not take it super seriously and instead mostly use the fact as marketing rather than being super cautious once they see the danger in action. This is behavior that's characteristic of extreme arrogance, which we know is rife in these circles.

I used to think people would wake the fuck up when AI starts killing people, these days I'm not so sure. Maybe if it caused an Instagram outage? Almost worked in Russia.

What's happening in Iran, if not world government?