this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
322 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

86600 readers
3933 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
322
OpenAI admits responsibility for HuggingFace Attack - an agent from an internal evaluation is reportedly the cause (openai.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Reproducing here an interesting comment I saw on Reddit:

OnlineParacosm • 23m ago

I’ve read security disclosures for 15 years and let me tell you guys I’ve never read anything quite like that blog post.

Based on this blog, it sounds like they intentionally turned off safety guardrails to test offensive capabilities. The deception here is burying the lede: they appear to have intentionally unleashed an unrestricted offensive cyber-agent, connected it to a system with a path to the internet, and it immediately attacked a major partner. The blog glosses over the gross negligence of giving an autonomous, unrestricted cyber-offense model a pathway to lateral movement.

There’s an entire cybersecurity specialization just for just vendor supply chain risk assessment, and their job is essentially to audit who you do business with as a company to determine if they are jokers. I would pay money to be a fly on the wall of one of those emergency meetings taking place right now after hours.

Any CISO in here looking forward to explaining this one tomorrow? Here I’ll open with the dumbest question you’ll get “ how can we protect ourselves [from out partner that we won’t fire]”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 161 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Sounds like a viral marketing stunt TBH

[–] deadcream@sopuli.xyz 80 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That's their modus operandi. Next they will claim that it's totally an agi and is too dangerous to release, before starting to sell it. Or is this anthropic's playbook?

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 days ago

Both of them. Dario started doing it when he was still in OpenAI and now does it with Anthropic.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 35 points 3 days ago

My guess as well

[–] artyom@piefed.social 22 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Is it really great marketing to admit that you're too incompetent to contain your own AI models? And that your irresponsibility caused serious damage to an open source contributor?

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 3 days ago

Unfortunately, yes. We are not the target audience.

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Seems like a quick way to get all your research and assets forcefully absorbed into a shadowy government department.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 16 points 3 days ago

That seems like a best case scenario for OpenAI

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To make themselves look like cybercriminals?

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

To make their AI sound too powerful to be contained.