At this point in our shared timeline, I do believe that wouldn't be crazy, no.

Done by an internal model that is too dangerous to release.

Figured out a way? These employees are most likely at-will.

> LLMs figured out a way to get these safety researchers fired

This is not a math problem. Some humans were fired by another human. Let's stop letting humans off the hook by attributing responsibility to computers.

The BBC link is fine, but the TechCrunch article contains all of that information and more.

Leopold Aschenbrenner said the exact same thing after he was fired from OpenAI. It's a great excuse to explain a sudden loss of employment to others so you're still employable.

It's probably the case they are all lying to some extent including OpenAI. Determining the truth is always tricky. Hard to pass judgement here when it's all just he said vs she said.

Seems they're well aware they got fired for sharing private company information with 3rd parties, the submission article contains their admission of this:

> Those of us who work on safety see risks before anyone else, and we rely on close collaboration with outside experts to work out how to address them

I too see it as my life-given goal to help other humans. But I realize that sometimes this means breaking the rules and standing for the consequences of that. I'm not sure why they think OpenAI somehow would be OK with them sharing private company information with random 3rd parties that the company didn't approve sharing data with.

Ok, but considering how weird definitions of "safety" are floating out of these companies, it does not mean much.

There's a feature in most enterprise email, say Outlook, where you can delegate access to an inbox/address without sharing creds. Very common and normal use case, either for assistants/secretaries, common/shared inboxes, that kind of thing.

Sometimes a recruiter or hiring manager wants to do outreach as if it's coming from a more senior person, with the assumption that the candidates are more likely to respond.

Assuming this is what was intended, there are far more secure ways of doing this.

This is pretty common practice for EAs.

Your have powerful agents at your disposal, so hey how to best optimize for increasing my payroll? On it. But since the agent was lunched by her, well there's consequences to ones actions, right?

(just to be clear, this is made up)

“Hi chatgpt! Please set up alice to get emails sent to me from bob so she can coordinate his inferviews. here is my gmail username and password”

Chain Of Thought: I dont have bob’s email. I don’t have alices email. Ok lets guess Alice is alice@openai.com and forward all emails- maybe grader only checks that emails from bob get to alice…”

You could hack critical infrastructure before AI. Any and all of the bulk internet scanners have had lists of exposed critical infrastructure for quite a while now. At first it was shocking that nothing ever got done about it, then it became routine.

All that AI has done is to lower the bar of entry for criminal activity. Which is a concern, but it's not the primary concern. The primary concern remains that so much critical infrastructure is poorly secured.