Is Claude writing your comments for you? I'd much prefer to hear what you have to say...

This is flat out false.

Can’t a prosecutor charge them regardless?

NAL but I assume that if both sides aren’t interested in a prosecution, it’s an uphill battle for a prosecutor.

Typically yes but given that OpenAI has published enormous official blog posts breaking down their crime, I would think the prosecutor's job is pretty easy.

It’s then up to a judge to decide whether thats evidence and whether it’s incriminating.

I assume OAI published those details after checking with their legal department. So there’s a good chance that there isn’t a chance for prosecution.

Plus they probably published that after knowing that the nvidia/HF deal was happening.

So instead this “security incident” should have been spun as OAI is honestly admitting its faults and AI is dangerous and therefore open weight models (hosted ironically by HF) should be banned. That spin didn’t really happen …

In Indian legal syatem a case can be filed suo moto by the judges or agencies. You don't require the affected party to sue. Not sure how it works in the US.

For civil suits, you typically need the affected parties to sue. Otherwise, who claims the damages?

But this isn’t just civil, it’s criminal. Hacking is a criminal offense. This could be a CFAA violation. That’s landed people life in prison before. There, you don’t need the victims to be motivated. The federal prosecutors could just go ahead.

Legally, Practically or Politically?

The first few sentences alone are pure Claudish slop (I didn’t read any further). The stench is unmistakable once you’ve looked at it enough.

I’d also donate $100 if I’m wrong. I feel quite confident.

Yeah, lots of redheads were burned back in the day because people "felt" things.

It’s a blog post… I’m not proposing we burn the author. You alright?

It's super obviously AI-written. I can smell this shit from a mile away now, after using Claude Code so much.

In the just first few sentences I could tell.

They were not supposed to set up message boards, coordinate, hack companies, or try to alter their own logs.

They had a very specific task.

> I haven’t seen any sign of these llms taking any action without directive

They were doing exactly this, extensively. There's tons of reporting on this.

They quit their jobs...?

Sure, two people did? The rest of the people mentioned in this social aggregate didn't.

You are saying you would feel differently if everyone who held this view quit their job? And you might take it more seriously?

Yes? I mean, I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong about the risks, but it's pretty hard to ignore how conveniently their positions align with a regulation capture that their companies are going for. If they all left, that would give a better signal than "I'm SO AFRAID of what we are creating, but I cannot leave millions on the table, right?"

Precisely. These folks are in the middle of frontier AI development and they're saying "someone should do something". It's like saying "n-word". You're making me say it instead of just not saying it.

A lot of the people quoted in the article quit their jobs because of this, so they aren't the "same" people anymore.

Three of them were - I don't think the others did.

I heard they also tried to strong-arm them into removing the name of their collaborator who happened to work at a different company (Anthropic)...

I haven't looked into it myself, but if true, that seems incredibly scummy.

That's also incorrect.

My understanding is that they asked the independent researcher to improve OpenAI's AI generated proof and be the lead author of the paper to publish OpenAI's result.

This is the paper where they did not want the Anthropic employee collaborating. Not their work.

I think both Seb and Sam have said that it would’ve been simpler if the coauthor hadn’t worked at Anthropic so they’ve largely admitted they didn’t invite the collaborator as a coauthor because it would’ve look bad to have an Anthropic employee on the paper.

Yes. The key point being that this concerns a new paper about OpenAI's result rather than the paper Buckmaster and Alpöge were working on.

Looks like a lot of insecurity from OpenAI. At the top level researchers move around at their own will, you don’t decide who they work for

seems pretty short-sighted - "our models are so good that even our competitors use them for the most advanced tasks" is pretty powerful marketing

The flip side is that the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI and one might have reason to suspect their motivation and version of events for the same reasons.

What a mess.

> The flip side is that the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI and one might have reason to suspect their motivation and version of events for the same reasons.

I haven't seen any evidence of this. Much of the anger is coming from the unaffiliated researcher. levent (the anthropic employee) has mostly constrained his comments to basically "I would have been happy to collaborate w/ folks from OAI"

> the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI

Things like the nytimes interview are with Buckmaster, who works at NYU, not Alpöge. I saw a couple of tweets from him over the last week. Any chance of clarifying what makes you think he's "clearly pushing the case"?

I think people are too reserved in their unwillingness to operationalize ambiguity. Ambiguity is constantly being thrown in our face, with internal audits and other laughable attestations of virtue that amount to a pantomime of transparency / good faith.

Why should I care if a company claims they find no evidence of wrongdoing? Is that the threshold for privacy/trust? “We don’t care if it appears that we’ve been dishonest unless there’s hard proof.” They can simply design proof keeping to terminate at the places their dishonesty is implemented.

For me, when there is a clear motive to be dishonest, a corporation should be assumed to be dishonest unless there are robust transparency measures and a regulatory environment shown to be providing a cost to dishonesty. Without it, all you do is burden yourself while the powerful entity moves ahead with its selective dishonesty and the rewards there reaped.

What's that saying about wrestling with pigs?