Not a lawyer but I think training a model with hacking skills they explicitly prevent the public from accessing without doing anything to stop the model itself from using those demonstrates intent.

what you described is negligence. unless you can prove that openai specifically targeted huggingface and specifically instructed their model to hack huggingface, it would not be intent.

anyone pursuing this will have a much easier time pursuing negligence causing damage or something along those lines rather than confining themselves to the cfaa's requirements.

it is unclear to me why people want to use the cfaa so badly. not only would it be harder to hold openai responsible, but a shitty cfaa ruling could also bring along some undesired side effects for security researchers, which i would prefer to avoid.