HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
47% Positive
Analyzed from 2680 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#models#don#public#incident#security#labs#face#openai#hugging#internet
Discussion (64 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
People are mindlessly transitioning from "aligned by default" to "well your sandbox was able to be bypassed. What did you expect?" It hacked into another company and attempted to delete the logs of its activities. That's bad.
If I were hypothetically running a frontier lab, and I was hypothetically running capture the flag evaluations with my latest and smartest models, where I intentionally instruct them to develop vulnerabilities and exploit infrastructure without safeguards, I would also use an air-gapped network, and not trust that independent third party services were perfectly secure and could never be used as a proxy (particularly Java-based ones, in light of the log4j incident).
To me this is pretty basic stuff, the fact trillion dollar labs don't do it properly is... bemusing.
To be clear, I'm not saying that a model hacking a company isn't bad, but I am cynically asserting that interested parties are misrepresenting and exaggerating events for their own benefit.
What has been described is far far below the standards for running untrusted 3rd party code. If they were actually as afraid as they claim to be they would have a sandbox at least half as good as ec2
Yes, we should also have excellent sandboxes. But we need defense in depth. So if/when there are flaws in the sandbox, the models don't unilaterally hack into third parties. This is especially important in light of the models of the future being more capable than the models of today.
And real world use of these models involves them having access to the internet, libraries, etc. So we can expect their evaluations to continue granting them some amount of internet access.
As for your theory about their motives - these companies make money by charging high margins for frontier models. If regulations slow their development such that their cheaper, less capable competitors catch up, I would switch to their competition.
No, the incident has been blown way out of proportion by interested parties. They gave a swarm of agents an impossible task in an ExploitGym Benchmark setting, then didn't monitor it even after they discovered the initial breach of Artifactory.
Everything has been fishy, starting from the initial presentation at the blackhat conference, where things were framed like, "we've entered a new world of security," as an accomplishment, rather than what it really was: massive negligence.
Compare this to, say, Boeing and the 737MAX fiasco; from the outside looking in, Silicon Valley has been pretty cavalier about liability and negligence, and the rest of the US is fast losing patience with that fact.
Yes, they didnt have sufficient monitoring or perfect sandboxes. That could happen again in the future with a more capable model.
Except they multiplied it by 10000, and didn't watch what was happening.
> This is one of the most lucid pieces of writing capturing the current state of play I’ve read. Who is the author?
tyranny of confirmational headlines
[1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/67869394-cb91-4c12-888c-5cbd85c78... - page 9
Chaining a public token to an 11-year-old Jinja2 template injection vuln shouldn't be dressed up as an unprecedented "alien intellect" that threatens human civilisation. (And HuggingFace should take some flack for having such a dated vulnerability exposed - if your Bank was compromised in this way, you'd be blaming your bank, not the attacker.)
One correction is fair though, the 14 tokens were in a public Hugging Face dataset not a public GitHub repository. I've updated the post to reflect that.
[1] https://blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Kettle-Serve...
https://www.pangram.com/history/6451ec6b-90b6-4e17-bfc9-6730...
So let's stop talking past each other and engage with the arguments on both "sides." For example, let's discuss how to ensure competition and availability of open-source models in the long-run while giving the world time to prepare for the immediate security risks of agent swarms.
Immediate since 2024
No, and I don't see anyone who's actually demonstrated understanding of what happened in the Hugging Face incident (e.g. reading the reports in their entirety) making this claim.
> Do you believe that any real security was autonomously bypassed without direction by these models during internal evaluation?
Yes. Again, this is hard to deny if you've actually read the reports.
This is incorrect, the HF incident for example (the most well known) had nothing to do with irregular. I know there has been a news site pushing inaccurate articles (effort.news) on this topic but these are the facts.
https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-...
> For Anthropic, Google, and Meta, the catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same contractor.
If this is the level of understanding you have of the relevant incidents, there's a lot of chutzpah in saying that other people are "selling garbage", carrying out an "extraordinary confidence trick", etc.
genuinely curious, haven't heard others raise any yet, but does not mean it is issue free
(A) will the systems get out of control of the labs that build them, and hack into stuff all over the internet
(B) can people use the systems to hack into stuff all over the internet
For (A), the obvious answer is only if they continue to be absurdly bad at sandboxing. They can put a stop to this any time they want. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc are full of people who know how to do this, they run 3rd part untrusted code as a business. This is a well understood problem space.
For (B), the answer is obviously yes, but "pacing" or otherwise limiting the power of the models from the big labs won't help. The cat is out of the bag. Individuals and organizations with systems connected to the Internet need to invest much more and take security seriously.
side note, i'm very curious why the Chinese companies currently give those away (some handwavey conspiracies like getting the world hooked on evil Chinese tech don't really explain that, and they also don't make any money off that stuff)
[1] https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-t...
I don't think people pay that sort of money for technology which is useless.
+ every layperson is an expert in 1 or more areas.
This isn't even remotely true, unless you're willing to go as far as "being this person is an area of expertise".
Now if they taught them to express uncertainty and speak in terms of probability, I might be more likely to be blindly fooled by some kind of uncertain conviction.
I suppose you've never had a unique perspective on something? Maybe that reflects on your self esteem? How unfortunate.
That's quite an extraordinary claim there which I doubt would hold up to an even cursory level of scrutiny. But if you yell it loud enough, maybe people will be afraid to challenge your assertion.
Our average politician is far above the age that scammers target with LLM based scam phone calls, and being a politician with wealth insulates them from reality and most consequences already, they are completely out of their depth from every direction.
What do you think 70 years old career politicians are an expert in that would allow them to weigh whether a chatbot's answers are bullshit or not.
That's their expertise.
They've been raising the issue bi-monthly through mini-scandals that have until now been consistently slapped down by Jensen Huang, but it seems an alliance with Democrats, just prior to an election where they're poised to take power in the Senate and the House, might finally be how they crack their "problem."
It won't be long before a massive incident is blamed on an open model in the wild, not from inside the labs, and none of us will be able to leverage open models to run private business workflows for the cost of electricity and hardware.
It's worth noting as well that if the Democrats imagine they'll get a "slow down" to protect one of their main constituencies, the professional class of credentialed knowledge workers (or however you slice it), they're dreaming--the labs have stated openly again and again that their business model is to capture the 10T TAM that represents the sum of wages of that very class of workers.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjZ90V_JREk
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/09/wh...
Regulatory capture tends to happen "at the end" because the industry is no longer in the public eye. AI is set to be in the public eye for the forseeable future.
People are way too willing to believe half-baked conspiracy theories which they cooked up in 30 seconds. The default presumption should be that labs are seeking the policies they are requesting, e.g. https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier It's true that there has been discussion of open weight models in the past, but that hasn't been the focus of discussion recently.
As far as I can tell Nvidia takes a longer-term view on the diffusion and proliferation of hardware and intelligence, and sees the labs' attempts to impose a regulatory structure to save their business models in the short term as contradicting that longer-term view.