30 ms·

nobody has doubted that safety matters. the problem is that those preaching safety, openai and anthropic, are dishonest, sociopathic, and the very source of th

nobody has doubted that safety matters. the problem is that those preaching safety, openai and anthropic, are dishonest, sociopathic, and the very source of the danger.

solenoid0937 1mo ago
> are dishonest, sociopathic, and the very source of the danger Source?
- lukewarm707 1mo ago
  yes, they are the source of the danger. they are the cause of this incident.
- reasonableklout 1mo ago
  OpenAI and Anthropic have published a lot on the need for AI alignment + the research they're doing to ensure alignment/safety, yet they are also responsible for the highest profile misalignment incidents so far (HuggingFace incident, AISI Mythos social engineering, and now this). One interpretation of this is that they are being deliberately dishonest about their priorities. Another interpretation is that we cannot rely on the labs to self-regulate, because the labs don't trust each other, and there will always be pressure to go to market faster than their competitor. Either way I think it's pretty non-controversial that the labs are the source of the danger?
  - solenoid0937 1mo ago
    > yet they are also responsible for the highest profile misalignment incidents so far They are the only ones posting about them or admitting to them. That does not mean "the most misalignment incidents so far." You don't know what other attacks have happened (and it's very easy to carry out worse attacks in far higher volume with abliterated GLM 5.3) Stopping two labs from further research doesn't reduce the danger at all, it just shifts the danger to labs that don't have real safety orgs.
    - reasonableklout 1mo ago
      Right, that's why regulation which is universally applied and includes compute controls (to prevent reckless creation of swarms) would be great. "Posting about or admitting to attacks" is appreciated while people are still unaware of the risks but will be meaningless in the face of an industrial disaster that causes massive amounts of damage or loss of life. At some point, the leading labs must change their development practices, they can't just be allowed to continue rogue agent attacks just because they're willing to admit to them.
      - solenoid0937 1mo ago
        > At some point, the leading labs must change their development practices What indicates that this has not been done?
        lukewarm707 1mo ago
        looking back at anthropic's promises and committments, the key scaling policies were not upheld. to their credit they have kept the policies up on their website instead of trying to rewrite history. [https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy] with evidence that committments were not upheld and internal governance has been ineffective, we simply can't trust any such claim made by anthropic or dario amodei. it is a very similar situation at openai. in this case on top of governance failures, sam altman has a personal reputation for serial dishonesty and lack of integrity. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...] another reason that neither should be trusted is the lack of remorse or accountability. they are unrepentant. they are not admitting a mistake, they are bragging.
        solenoid0937 1mo ago
        Let's take the latest blog post from Anthropic on how their models hacked companies. What exactly comes off as "bragging?" How were the RSPs not upheld? I'm reading their Aug 2026 Risk Report and nothing indicates malfeasance. This seems very transparent to me.
Sharlin 1mo ago
Where does this weird idea come that the people actually preaching safety have anything to do with OpenAI or Anthropic? Yes, those companies of course pay lip service to safety, but the Venn diagram of actual AI safety people and big AI corporations is completely disjoint.

nobody has doubted that safety matters. the problem is that those preaching safety, openai and anthropic, are dishonest, sociopathic, and the very source of the danger.

solenoid0937 1mo ago

> are dishonest, sociopathic, and the very source of the danger Source?

lukewarm707 1mo ago
yes, they are the source of the danger. they are the cause of this incident.
reasonableklout 1mo ago
OpenAI and Anthropic have published a lot on the need for AI alignment + the research they're doing to ensure alignment/safety, yet they are also responsible for the highest profile misalignment incidents so far (HuggingFace incident, AISI Mythos social engineering, and now this). One interpretation of this is that they are being deliberately dishonest about their priorities. Another interpretation is that we cannot rely on the labs to self-regulate, because the labs don't trust each other, and there will always be pressure to go to market faster than their competitor. Either way I think it's pretty non-controversial that the labs are the source of the danger?
- solenoid0937 1mo ago
  > yet they are also responsible for the highest profile misalignment incidents so far They are the only ones posting about them or admitting to them. That does not mean "the most misalignment incidents so far." You don't know what other attacks have happened (and it's very easy to carry out worse attacks in far higher volume with abliterated GLM 5.3) Stopping two labs from further research doesn't reduce the danger at all, it just shifts the danger to labs that don't have real safety orgs.
  - reasonableklout 1mo ago
    Right, that's why regulation which is universally applied and includes compute controls (to prevent reckless creation of swarms) would be great. "Posting about or admitting to attacks" is appreciated while people are still unaware of the risks but will be meaningless in the face of an industrial disaster that causes massive amounts of damage or loss of life. At some point, the leading labs must change their development practices, they can't just be allowed to continue rogue agent attacks just because they're willing to admit to them.
    - solenoid0937 1mo ago
      > At some point, the leading labs must change their development practices What indicates that this has not been done?
      - lukewarm707 1mo ago
        looking back at anthropic's promises and committments, the key scaling policies were not upheld. to their credit they have kept the policies up on their website instead of trying to rewrite history. [https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy] with evidence that committments were not upheld and internal governance has been ineffective, we simply can't trust any such claim made by anthropic or dario amodei. it is a very similar situation at openai. in this case on top of governance failures, sam altman has a personal reputation for serial dishonesty and lack of integrity. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...] another reason that neither should be trusted is the lack of remorse or accountability. they are unrepentant. they are not admitting a mistake, they are bragging.
        solenoid0937 1mo ago
        Let's take the latest blog post from Anthropic on how their models hacked companies. What exactly comes off as "bragging?" How were the RSPs not upheld? I'm reading their Aug 2026 Risk Report and nothing indicates malfeasance. This seems very transparent to me.

Sharlin 1mo ago

Where does this weird idea come that the people actually preaching safety have anything to do with OpenAI or Anthropic? Yes, those companies of course pay lip service to safety, but the Venn diagram of actual AI safety people and big AI corporations is completely disjoint.