2 ms·

The article, summarized: there are incentives for OpenAI to claim that their AI hacked its way out of their network and into Hugging Face. Ok... and what? Do

by sfink 2mo ago

The article, summarized: there are incentives for OpenAI to claim that their AI hacked its way out of their network and into Hugging Face. Ok... and what? Do you have any evidence for the claim being either true or false that you'd like to write an article about? I guess not. Without anything to add, this article reduces to "I has big brain and can see what you sheep cannot. Very big brain. Gullible sheep. Sucks to be you, sheep." (For the record: I see the incentive. My guess is that it happened exactly as described. The main takeaways: (1) science fiction is now real, we should all be very afraid; and (2) OpenAI, which claims to have a God-given responsibility to get to AGI first to protect the world from danger, cannot be trusted with this foundational task even when it's in easy mode. The latter is true whether or not you believe in OpenAI's reasoning and purpose.)

microcentury 2mo ago
[flagged]
- mppv 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - boomskats 2mo ago
    Right, Pravda. Four year old Hacker News account and this is the first comment? The Guardian is only 'left leaning' in that it provides mildly controversial but reassuringly inconsequential opinions and sound bytes for people to regurgitate so they can convince themselves they've done something about that uncomfortable feeling they're carrying around. It's like a sports team. Sponsors and all. Hah I guess in that way it is just like Pravda.
wrs 2mo ago
I think you misread the article. The skepticism isn’t about whether it happened. It’s about whether it’s a reason for models to be locked behind “trusted partner” firewalls. Offensive hacking capabilities are the same as defensive. Hugging Face had to use a Chinese model to defend against this because they weren’t allowed to use OpenAI models to do it.
- sfink 2mo ago
  Ok, fair. I know that was also in the article, but your comment made me reread it, and I think you're right about the focus. I over-fixated on the headline. On second read, it's more like a lazy way to justify a preconceived idea that all models should be available and unconstrained to everyone (or everyone who might get attacked, at least, but that's approximately everyone.) Updated tl;dr: "There are incentives for OpenAI to say that AI is powerful and dangerous, therefore fully unconstrained AIs should be available to everyone." It's still more of a statement of belief than a logical argument.

by sfink 2mo ago

microcentury 2mo ago

[flagged]

mppv 2mo ago
[flagged]
- boomskats 2mo ago
  Right, Pravda. Four year old Hacker News account and this is the first comment? The Guardian is only 'left leaning' in that it provides mildly controversial but reassuringly inconsequential opinions and sound bytes for people to regurgitate so they can convince themselves they've done something about that uncomfortable feeling they're carrying around. It's like a sports team. Sponsors and all. Hah I guess in that way it is just like Pravda.

wrs 2mo ago

I think you misread the article. The skepticism isn’t about whether it happened. It’s about whether it’s a reason for models to be locked behind “trusted partner” firewalls. Offensive hacking capabilities are the same as defensive. Hugging Face had to use a Chinese model to defend against this because they weren’t allowed to use OpenAI models to do it.

sfink 2mo ago
Ok, fair. I know that was also in the article, but your comment made me reread it, and I think you're right about the focus. I over-fixated on the headline. On second read, it's more like a lazy way to justify a preconceived idea that all models should be available and unconstrained to everyone (or everyone who might get attacked, at least, but that's approximately everyone.) Updated tl;dr: "There are incentives for OpenAI to say that AI is powerful and dangerous, therefore fully unconstrained AIs should be available to everyone." It's still more of a statement of belief than a logical argument.