"Every single one of these catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same vendor."

This is incorrect, the HF incident for example (the most well known) had nothing to do with irregular. I know there has been a news site pushing inaccurate articles (effort.news) on this topic but these are the facts.

https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-...

▲

nr378 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you, you're correct. Effort.news was one of my research sources, but you're right that although OpenAI use Irregular, they were not involved in the specific HF incident (although the failure mode was otherwise identical). I've updated the post to make that clear.

▲

kalkin an hour ago | parent | next [-]

As of writing it still says:

> For Anthropic, Google, and Meta, the catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same contractor.

If this is the level of understanding you have of the relevant incidents, there's a lot of chutzpah in saying that other people are "selling garbage", carrying out an "extraordinary confidence trick", etc.

	▲	nr378 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

aesthesia 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The failure mode was _not_ identical. The HF incident agents were not directly connected to the internet and had to compromise an internal package registry in order to access the internet.

▲

DalasNoin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

thank you for this reasonable reaction

▲

verdverm 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you point out an inaccuracy in the effort.news piece on the hacking incidents? HuggingFace only appears once, as a "similar", not levied against Irregular

genuinely curious, haven't heard others raise any yet, but does not mean it is issue free