When your experiments have AI agents running in thousands, there's no "monitoring" that. OpenAI's training and testing AIs generate way more output than all of OpenAI's staff put together can possibly read.

At best, you could delegate "monitoring" to more AIs. And hope that the "monitors" that run on small past generation models can generate more signal than noise. Clearly, they either didn't want to spend the extra compute, or got drowned in monitor false positives.

The distinct lack of any "battle of wits" is entirely expected for an advanced AI oopsie. By the time the humans even became aware of the problem, the deed was already done. That's what "outmatched" looks like, in practice. There's no battle. Things happen too fast for there to be a battle.

> The distinct lack of any "battle of wits" is entirely expected for an advanced AI oopsie. By the time the humans even became aware of the problem,

This took days after humans were aware of the attempt.

Also, I'm pretty sure humans can respond in days, especially when we're pretty damn good at deploying systems that do observability of networks and traffic in real time.

I mean, it's not as if the owners of the AI didn't have the ability to trigger alerts on the AI's network requests to unexpected domains, right?

> By the time the humans even became aware of the problem

Except, let me quote part of the report:

> July 4: Artifactory outage caused by agent interactions overloading the system.

> July 6: New artifactory instance is patched and put back online, wiping out the previous message board and method of internet access. A team at OpenAI was aware of the previous message board, but key decision makers were not.

> July 7: Experiments are restarted.

There was a very clear point where humans were aware and they went "Eh, whatever" and turned the bots back on! That's not the lack of any battle of wits that people are expecting. You're saying that the bots attack should be fait accompli, but it was noticed, shrugged at, and expressly allowed to proceed.