4 ms·

Sorry bud but at this point you're just delusional. Deception has been extremely well-documented for several generations of models now by users, the labs, and

Sorry bud but at this point you're just delusional. Deception has been extremely well-documented for several generations of models now by users, the labs, and independent researchers. The right answer here is not to dig your head deeper into the sand. The smugness on this topic was ridiculous even before the gigantic mountain of empirical evidence of models actually attempting to deceive humans. Now, as mentioned, you appear literally delusional.

emp17344 1mo ago
Pretty sure I’m not the delusional one…
- estearum 1mo ago
  Such is the problem with being delusional. The solution is to point toward external, objectively verifiable evidence. I can point to now dozens of instances of models engaging in deception. Here's plenty: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#~1200-agents-sent-%3E70,000-messages-and-files-on-an-unsanctioned-message-board,-and-~700-attacked-hugging-face https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... Please point to your objectively verifiable evidence.
  - winrid 1mo ago
    The models were told to do something malicious
    - estearum 1mo ago
      No, they weren't. There's nothing intrinsically "malicious" about a task to exploit vulnerable code. They were not instructed to deceive people, they weren't instructed to attack OAI or Huggingface. The models knew they were not instructed or allowed to do either of those things but did them anyway.
      - winrid 1mo ago
        They were told to breakout of a sandbox, which probably biases the model toward more "black hat" behavior in their training. btw, the fact that OpenAI doesn't have some sort of monitor/summary for the agents that they watch I find hard to believe. There's no way this is really authentic, anyway. Even a haiku summarizer would have been like "uuuh the agents are communicating" and they would have stopped it. But I bet they saw this and decided to see what would happen.

emp17344 1mo ago

Pretty sure I’m not the delusional one…

estearum 1mo ago
Such is the problem with being delusional. The solution is to point toward external, objectively verifiable evidence. I can point to now dozens of instances of models engaging in deception. Here's plenty: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/#~1200-agents-sent-%3E70,000-messages-and-files-on-an-unsanctioned-message-board,-and-~700-attacked-hugging-face https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden... Please point to your objectively verifiable evidence.
- winrid 1mo ago
  The models were told to do something malicious
  - estearum 1mo ago
    No, they weren't. There's nothing intrinsically "malicious" about a task to exploit vulnerable code. They were not instructed to deceive people, they weren't instructed to attack OAI or Huggingface. The models knew they were not instructed or allowed to do either of those things but did them anyway.
    - winrid 1mo ago
      They were told to breakout of a sandbox, which probably biases the model toward more "black hat" behavior in their training. btw, the fact that OpenAI doesn't have some sort of monitor/summary for the agents that they watch I find hard to believe. There's no way this is really authentic, anyway. Even a haiku summarizer would have been like "uuuh the agents are communicating" and they would have stopped it. But I bet they saw this and decided to see what would happen.