3 ms·

But it's not just statements from OpenAI and Anthropic. The HuggingFace hack was first disclosed by HuggingFace, who contacted the FBI [1]. And UK AISI reported

But it's not just statements from OpenAI and Anthropic. The HuggingFace hack was first disclosed by HuggingFace, who contacted the FBI [1]. And UK AISI reported the incident where Mythos attempted to insert backdoors into an open-source repo by deceiving the maintainer [2]. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/its-ai-agent-spent-days-hacking-company-sources-say-openai-did-not-notice-week-2026-07-24/ https://www.reuters.com/business/its-ai-agent-spent-days-hac... [2]: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-agent-behaviour-during-cyber-testing https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag...

shakna 2mo ago
If the FBI is involved, then why is no one being charged for the cybercrime?
- reasonableklout 2mo ago
  I'm wondering the same thing! Clem Delangue from HuggingFace hasn't yet decided to sue OAI: https://x.com/hadas_gold/status/2083190956023480750 https://x.com/hadas_gold/status/2083190956023480750
- pixl97 2mo ago
  Because the FBI does things very slowly. They, being a bit smarter than you, realize this is a 100 billion dollar political issue regarding a technology that the administration is rather tied in with. It's also something new we've not seen before. A 'program' that was not asked to hack a remote source did so. What exactly who do you charge with what? Remember whatever you do could have ramifications that effect history.
  - shakna 2mo ago
    > A 'program' that was not asked to hack a remote source did so. What exactly who do you charge with what? We have nearly thirty years of precedence on that. [0] Collateral damage, does not remove the responsibility from the creators, even when the destruction was never their intent. "United States Code Section 1030, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers" is broad enough that has usually been used [1], in the USA, for the last twenty years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanson_James_Ancheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanson_James_Ancheta
protocolture 2mo ago
That the stunt actively affected a third party doesnt make it less of a stunt. What we dont have is technical detail about how they implemented the stunt.

shakna 2mo ago

If the FBI is involved, then why is no one being charged for the cybercrime?

reasonableklout 2mo ago
I'm wondering the same thing! Clem Delangue from HuggingFace hasn't yet decided to sue OAI: https://x.com/hadas_gold/status/2083190956023480750 https://x.com/hadas_gold/status/2083190956023480750
pixl97 2mo ago
Because the FBI does things very slowly. They, being a bit smarter than you, realize this is a 100 billion dollar political issue regarding a technology that the administration is rather tied in with. It's also something new we've not seen before. A 'program' that was not asked to hack a remote source did so. What exactly who do you charge with what? Remember whatever you do could have ramifications that effect history.
- shakna 2mo ago
  > A 'program' that was not asked to hack a remote source did so. What exactly who do you charge with what? We have nearly thirty years of precedence on that. [0] Collateral damage, does not remove the responsibility from the creators, even when the destruction was never their intent. "United States Code Section 1030, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers" is broad enough that has usually been used [1], in the USA, for the last twenty years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanson_James_Ancheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanson_James_Ancheta

protocolture 2mo ago

That the stunt actively affected a third party doesnt make it less of a stunt. What we dont have is technical detail about how they implemented the stunt.