Irregular was not involved in the Hugging Face incident.

And there is no reason for the companies to "exaggerate the intelligence of the models" when there are plenty of other non-felony milestones they are achieving, like solving Millenium Prize math problems.

▲

r_lee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

honestly, the hacking incidents have caused a lot more interest and media attention than the math stuff IMO.

▲

reasonableklout 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, interest like an incoming congressional investigation: https://www.axios.com/2026/09/10/openai-hugging-face-senate-...

And on this website, the math stuff is getting more clicks:

- Navier Stokes - Tristan Buckmaster (2050 points): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915

- HuggingFace incident discussion (1632 points): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997548

▲

r_lee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

interesting.

> Sure, interest like an incoming congressional investigation

I feel like that's exactly what they wanted tho.

they'll go on and talk about how dangerous AI and the models are and why they should be regulated and given licenses to operate such models and others should be walled off

▲

reasonableklout 3 hours ago | parent [-]

First, it's not at all clear OpenAI will get what it wants from the investigation. It seems just as likely to me that OAI gets hit with massive fines, just as Meta was recently.

> I feel like that's exactly what they wanted tho.

It's also what the majority of Americans want. This was the case even before Hugging Face, see for example [1] where 68% of Americans supported a formal review process for frontier models.

So at some level, you are saying "the evil labs are opening up the industry to democratic control, and their evil plan will result in the outcome that most people want!"

[1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/29/tigh...

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The claim is that the evil labs are opening up the industry to very carefully manipulated democratic control. It's astroturf, not grassroots.

I wouldn't call that "democratic control", even though it uses the machinery of democracy.

	▲	reasonableklout 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This claim seems unfalsifiable. I don't really know what to say. The poll I linked above was published a month before Hugging Face. Taking a step back, I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that software engineering as a field has utterly transformed over the last year, the same thing is happening to lots of other knowledge work, and AI is improving fast enough that nobody knows what it'll look like in a decade. Most Americans (myself included) want to do good work in secure careers and have a good idea of what the future will look like in 20-30 years so they know what to focus on. Do you not believe they'd want to regulate the frontier?

▲

kridsdale1 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Investigation which could ideally lead to regulatory capture and the banning of open weights, thus ensuring Anthropic’s revenue.

▲

an0malous 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The one RubyGems hack post alone is another 96) points

▲

datakan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“There’s no such thing as bad press”

▲

financetechbro 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Solving math problems does not drive investor hype. Saying your models can take over the world, which can lead one to assume that they can do every day office work, does indeed drive investor hype.

▲

theplumber an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OpenAI delayed its IPO now due AI safety reasons. In the meantime it is raising more cash. That should be a hint that the hacking incidents were premeditated scape goats and publicity stunts.

They’ve seen that the drama queen(Dario) was actually making a lot of noise, money and free publicity with his Mythos fear monger so Sam finally decided get some of that free “money” as well.

https://www.ft.com/content/27509db8-b032-4437-9b2a-e909f4660...

▲

BearOso 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Navier-Stokes thing? They had hundreds of segmented groups of 10000 agents running trying to solve that. I can't imagine the expense. For what little publicity it got, it wasn't worth it. There are also reports they cheated by using data from a couple human researchers, but I don't think that one's true.