HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
68% Positive
Analyzed from 2280 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#openai#should#don#stunt#point#enough#https#marketing#run#models
Discussion (62 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
This will not happen though, because these stories are marketing.
Agreed.
>This will not happen though, because these stories are marketing.
Regulators should investigate the stories, and shut things down if they are real, announce the ruse if they are false.
As you said though, that wouldn’t have the desired effect.
Asking a agent harness to try whatever it wants to achieve some results, without guardrails, while running in lightweight isolation on 3rd party infrastructure? Feels like they didn't even try, people should be held responsible for this.
One of the key strengths agents have is they just keep going and going, and for cyberattacks that is often unreasonably effective. It is like a barely more aware fuzzing.
The magnitude and the complexity of the cynicism displayed by some people when it comes to AI risks is mind-blowing.
It's like if the NRA reported on school shootings and people said "oh, they probably fake these shootings to make guns sound dangerous and sell more of them".
OpenAI could report that its AI started spontaneously generating illegal porn and sending it to people and you'd still think it was a marketing stunt.
This is based on similar thinking to how the world would not have considered nuclear weapons a major threat if they had forever stayed unused.
The irony of the doomer position is it achieves exactly their supposed nightmare scenario of disaster leading to authoritarian world government without any of the supposed benefits, the twist being they get to be the authoritarian world government so they are ok with it.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary measures.
If it’s rubbish those stories will stop instantly.
Yeah, I don't understand either. If there was a "hitman for hire" service on the clearweb, the police would shut it down first, then ask questions. Now we have a huge company effectively letting AI agents without guardrails run amok on 3rd party infrastructure, and the police is doing nothing?
https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026
/s
> 2023 - OpenAI’s Sam Altman Urges A.I. Regulation in Senate Hearing
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-...
Meanwhile Anthropic is scaremongering about China and also calling for more AI regulation (specifically mandatory safety testing of all models including open model):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076057
This is either yet another doom ad campaign to scare us to pay them or simply them releasing faulty tools and then personifying tools to avoid blame.
They've been crying and screaming so loud for years that there's pretty much nothing more they can do to communicate when the wolf actually becomes real. They've been saying "but we actually mean it this time" every single time. They've exhausted pretty much every possible route for it. The wolf is not real. It hasn't been real. For all we know it's on the horizon, but nobody is going to listen to them in order to know that. And when they say "I told you so", well they've been saying that too over and over about small things, so nobody's still going to bat an eye.
At this point, no one will believe it until they see it with their own eyes.
Or will the rules only apply to people who aren't on DoD's bad side?
Bingo. Problem solved.
> The agents also hallucinated reams of incoherent commands and text and were sloppy and did not cover their tracks well.
ASI works in mysterious ways.
> But among the errors and strange behaviour, Hugging Face warned the AI agents made brilliant technical moves and were able to rapidly adapt to new scenarios in the days-long hack.
It's hard to say for certain what's a waste of time for a machine that can operate virtually outside of time.
This is entirely separate from them having uses.
With that said, I do agree with you, they're highly productive to certain workflows, and personally a great help for oh so many things, but they're also really, really dumb and the average person (and even general developer) really misunderstands how it all works and what can be relied on for vs not.
I think the whole "AI will take over the world and enslave humanity" (or whatever the doomerism is today) is a bit over the top, but at very least we should contain the companies who clearly demonstrate they cannot handle containing what they're experimenting with, when what they work on breaks containment over and over again. Where are the people who are supposed to be keeping the public safe? Alarm bells should be going off all over the place at this point.
At the speed AI can achieve work, this could be far, far too slow to contain a future genuine problem. There's danger in operating at faster speed than humans.
So every processor since the 50s then? What kind of comment is that to make on here
It seems to have been running on some kind of high speed inference hardware. I remember OpenAI announced the next release would have a high speed inference option.
I had a similar experience when I was testing some models on Cerebras a while back. It's really quite an incredible thing to experience. Burns money like crazy though. And you don't know what the heck it's doing because it moves way faster than you can read. So you got to pray you aimed it right, and that it didn't go off the rails.
I would definitely love to have high speed inference for smaller bite-sized tasks though. Changing a 10-second task into one second task changes the whole nature of the experience back from asynchronous to real-time/interactive.
At this point, the conspiracy theories have been very half-baked. Can we at least get a full-baked conspiracy theory? Here's a timeline of the incident from HuggingFace:
https://huggingface.co/blog/agent-intrusion-technical-timeli...
HuggingFace is also calling for transparency on the OpenAI side:
https://xcancel.com/ClementDelangue/status/20810566755581956...
Can we get a cybersecurity pro who believes this was just a stunt to sort through the evidence and put together their own alternative version of events?
For example, according to the "just a stunt" people, when HuggingFace contacted law enforcement, was HF in on the stunt at that point? Was this a unilateral OpenAI stunt, or a HF/OpenAI collaborative stunt?
The importance of getting to the bottom of this seems high. I'd like to see the "just a stunt" folks put together at least one blog post's worth of narrative, trying to explain how the stunt was performed.
Once you're done you can send your post to simonw and see what he thinks: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jul/22/openai-cyberattack/#re...
I don't think that people are skeptical that an intrusion occurred. I think they're having a hard time believing that it was an organic event. The fact that HF is calling for transparency on OpenAI's side can be viewed as HF calling OpenAI's bluff.
Alas, I would love to put together a detailed blog post explaining how it all worked. But I just don't have access to the source materials. So all I can do is judge the timing, motivation, and character of those involved...
Yet to useless to parse a simple CSV file (or be trusted to parse one) in OpenAI’s AdManager platform or even tell what exactly is wrong with the csv it can’t parse when you ask it via support.
Or maybe the first bit is made up bullshit.
https://huggingface.co/blog/agent-intrusion-technical-timeli...
> Ethical hacker Valentina Palmiotti - better known as Chompie - reviewed the CSA report and says the way the agents hack might seem haphazard but it is clearly effective.
> "They throw out a bunch of stuff and see what sticks," she said.
> "But they also don't get bored, they don't sleep and can be infinitely tenacious."
Madness. Traditionally, you can leave security holes open for years or decades, and often nobody notices if nobody bothers to look. But we're approaching the point where any security hole left open at any point could get discovered and exploited quite quickly, even if it's domain-specific or entirely unique, and even if no human interest ever would've occurred. It's like the next step up from those IPv4 scanners that automatically hit WordPress admin URLs and the like -- where rather than only spraying vulnerabilities that have already been discovered, they would run independent automated campaigns against each target.
With that said, I would tentatively agree in this case that LLM inference is getting cheap enough that defense is not necessarily that expensive, especially from providers like DeepSeek, even if you don't have inference at home, but as much as this might help an operator with an open mind, a lot just will not believe it matters until it's too late - most people are not used to dealing with this type of threat.
I think it's a sign of ignorance, and when codified into policy, willful ignorance.