OpenAI are trying to create the perception that their agents are independent thinking machines because their valuation depends on the world believing this.

That is why ‘asked’ is important, and why we should question their framing of incidents like the hugging face hack too.

▲

yewenjie 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Enterprise customers don't like AI that can autonomously hack third party companies and cause felony-level cyberattacks.

	▲	grey-area 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Doesn't seem to have stopped them buying into it so far.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>OpenAI are trying to create the perception that their agents are independent thinking machines because their valuation depends on the world believing this.

Wouldn't the calls to slow the development of frontier AIs contradict this idea?

https://www.pacingthefrontier.com/

You aren't one of those "regulatory capture" people are you?

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-safety-is-not-a-corporat...

Because it takes some mental gymnastics to both believe

"it's all a stunt to convince investors their AI is/will be hyper-capable"

and

"it's all a stunt to convince the government to regulate AI so it won't be hyper-capable"

▲

lesspassiveobse 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

it's a stunt to convince the government that only they can be trusted to operate it and that their competition/small local deployments cannot.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well that would explain why HuggingFace announced that the use of an open-weight model was critical to their investigation of the incident :-)

▲

DharmaPolice an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think it takes mental gymnastics to believe that corporations want the government to believe one thing and investors another. You see the same thing in a number of other areas.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So I'm supposed to believe that the intent of publicly announcing e.g. the HuggingFace incident was to simultaneously persuade investors that the technology will rocket ahead, and also to persuade governments that it needs to be thwarted? Why wouldn't it do the reverse? Persuade investors that the technology will be thwarted (and is thus a poor investment), while also persuading the government that the technology needs to rocket ahead with no regulation (to boost the economy)? Most of these HN conspiracy theories seem like galaxy-brained just-so-stories to me. OpenAI only confirmed the RubyGems incident when it was discovered by external researchers: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-agents-attac... "@OpenAI this is the third time you've dumped these incidents late on a Friday. The first time this happened, I asked people around me if it might be intentional to burry it, and they assured me OpenAI had too much integrity to try to do that. Perhaps one of your researchers can confirm that the unfortunate timing is a coincidence?" https://x.com/SydneyVonArx/status/2108783466451984737