| I am struggling to see how "oops, our models consistently escape sandboxing and did major intrusions into third-parties" is a better comms strat vs Anthropics (who mind you, also had models attacking third-parties in a much more limited, but I feel still egregious manner, which shouldn't happen or be possible even once, but at least they seem to change their approach upon that information). Imagine, for a second, if the Hugging Face incident happened at a lab that did not talk like Anthropic but also wasn't US-based such as Z.AI, DeepSeek or Moonshot. Think their rhetoric would mean no one would care? > just got to releasing incremental improvements, everything was perfectly fine. Maybe missing something, but the only incremental release before and after the Anthropic restrictions got lifted was Fable 5.1, released three days ago. |
| |
| ▲ | Topfi an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "into third-parties". Yeah, HF was meant by that. Also why I mentioned Anthropic also having intrusions outside their lab [0]. Theirs were not merely as extensive or long coordinated (as far as we know), yet I feel strongly all the same that neither should happen given the safety focus that both labs purport. Mind you, unintended/unauthorised "message board" also is just a nice, euphemistic way, to describe what happened in a manner that, thinking about it, is likely in the interest of OpenAI as it can make the severity and effort taken sound less than it was. The OpenAI models didn't use any actual, sanctioned platform to exchange messages in a manner the lab expected or planned for. They used directory names (in one instance) to exchange messages including sharing exploits, they created something akin to a message board via exploits, which if we are honest and very strict, could also be seen as intrusion, albeit inside the org. If I broke into my employers server and left message somewhere for another to find, that'd also be intrusion in the general sense. [0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cyber... | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If applicants for an elite college or internship program at a FAANG company were found to have colluded in this way to cheat on a test/interview, I suspect that it would be a pretty major scandal. Why should we let equivalent fraudulent behavior from a non human system - that explicitly shouldn’t do this - slide? | | |
| ▲ | nullbio 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not saying it should be let to slide, but I'm not a fan of the hyperbole surrounding this event. They've already faced significant heat for the HF incident, I think they've learned their lesson. But this is now just being used to drum up fear, which can only mean one thing: Less access for you, more access for the privileged class. The biggest threat we face is centralization of power. OpenAI are one of the good ones because they're actually pushing for everybody to have a fair share of access to the frontier, not just a small privileged elite of billionaires, politicians and megacorp executives. If Anthropic got their way, we'd all be using a censored watered down slop-pistol while they swallow the Earth's economy and enslave us all. I'm sure they'll be investing considerable resources into ensuring that this "news" makes the mainstream media cycle as prominently as imaginable. | | |
| ▲ | Topfi 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I think they've learned their lesson. Why do you think that? Intrusions by OpenAI models continued after the Hugging Face was published and acknowledged by OpenAI. They did not change their behaviour after multiple incidents, both internal and external. Mind you, some happened before the Hugging Face incident and should have been acted upon. They could have prevented this. They did not. Simply reckless. | | |
| ▲ | nullbio a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | > Intrusions by OpenAI models continued after the Hugging Face was published and acknowledged by OpenAI Such as? Because this particular case is not an "intrusion", and it's more follow-on from the HF scenario using the same model that had a finetuning misalignment, which is no longer used and has since been encrypted and locked away from OAI employees, according to them. |
|
|
|
|
