Important to note the actual title is "OpenAI’s accidental cyberattack against Hugging Face is science fiction that happened" - the "that happened" is important, otherwise it sounds like I think the attack was made up.

Since it's buried towards the bottom I'll quote the section "Resist the temptation to write this off as a stunt" here in full https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jul/22/openai-cyberattack/#re...

> Resist the temptation to write this off as a stunt

> There will inevitably be some people who dismiss this story as a dishonest marketing trick by OpenAI to make their models sound terrifyingly effective. I found 81 instances of the term “marketing” in the Hacker News discussion of the incident.

> To those people I say pull your heads out of the sand - you’re now including Hugging Face in your conspiracy theories, just so you can deny the crescendo of evidence here!

> The best models we have today have the ability to both find and exploit new vulnerabilities. The ExploitGym paper itself concludes that “autonomous exploit development by frontier AI agents is no longer a hypothetical capability”, and this incident is a perfect example of exactly that.

It can, it is both - PR spindoctoring not letting a good crisis go to waste to shape the regulatory conversation at the time the company needs it the most.

Hacking is a felony and it matters not if you didn’t mean to if the other side were to press charges. Negligence is no excuse. And OpenAI has nowhere to run from the liability, as both operator and manufacturer.

Alibaba did it first ( https://georgzoeller.com/blog/posts/alibaba-s-ai-deciding-to... )

and the fact that this happens again in a frontier lab is inexcusable and makes the case for operator liability and closing the liability sink of “AI did it”

This is an _amazing_ typo :) Thank you, thank you :)

There's no multi-party conspiracy theory required here. Events can have played out exactly as OpenAI and Hugging Face described, and OpenAI can also have reaped a huge amount of free marketing for the capability of their models from all this coverage (including your post). You're telling us to not be doubtful of the boy who cried wolf, when in actual fact the one doing the crying is the one training bigger and badder wolves (and trying to convince us that they hold the key to our safety from wolf attacks[1]).

Also, the last section of your post appears to imply that if the attackers have bigger guns then the only possible solution is to give the defenders bigger guns. You're openly supporting an arms race towards the most capable, least restrained models put in the hands of the most possible people. That's extremely concerning.

[1]: https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-de...