I'm somewhat skeptical of some of the crazier ideas too.

But the hugging face incident was actually very large. It was not a single agent, it was not a single target, and it was not a single event.

If nothing else, that's a bit of a warning as to what can happen next time (By accident, or if a government decides to go on purpose).

For now let's assume the worst that can happen is that some important/significant chunk of (transitively) internet connected stuff goes haywire all at once. That's probably your upper limit of what can go wrong for now.

To be fair, that's a conservative "defend against the last war" kind of prediction, though!

( ref for part of it: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... , recent hn ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49563355 )

Generally I don’t think anyone is arguing about the for now part. I don’t think it’s crazy to extrapolate out a few years and ask what kind of danger we’ll be in then. A team of 10,000 agents just solved the Navier Stokes problem (sans bad behavior by the researchers). Even 1 year ago that would have been unimaginable. What happens to this risk view as:

1. Robotics begin rolling out more broadly across the world.

2. Labs start automating more and more of the physical process of running science as expectations of natural science advances begin to mount.

3. Economic pressure between the labs continues to ramp up and the pressure to continuously improve forces quicker and quicker model releases than a team of human scientists can effectively evaluate outside of automated means.

No one knows what pre-conditions are for us to hit the point of no return nor how quickly it will come. If all is required is a sufficiently advanced cyber model we may not be far off. If it requires incredibly complex biological knowledge and access to certain lab supplies we likely have a bit longer. Yes this is guess work and we need more evidence of the dangers but at the same time we need evidence of safety. While you may disagree with the risk level, I think it is easy to see the consequence if these labs achieve their stated goal. At this point it seems a political solution is the only way to enforce caution.

> For now let's assume the worst that can happen is that some important/significant chunk of (transitively) internet connected stuff goes haywire all at once. That's probably your upper limit of what can go wrong for now.

If we have to disconnect from the internet to stop some kind of mold outbreak, we can't get the weather or transfer money or access healthcare or teach an elementary school class or buy stuff from small businesses. That sounds doom-ish.

The plausible deniability aspect is pretty funny though.

> State sponsored hack #3782

> Haha sorry the AIs got a bit goofy again!

The hugging face incident had no effect on hugging face, whose service is replicated by countless sites. The descriptions of the phases of the interaction are thrilling in a way that inclines one to forget this

Despite all of your hyping up of the Huggingface incident it ultimately caused zero actual damage.