I wish the NPR news broadcasters on the radio yesterday had read the "it's good marketing so maybe don't believe it" angle instead of just parroting the OpenAI press release. Getting that message out would be enormously helpful in countering the blatant submarine marketing "Oh no our AI is a super hacker" with a side of "please regulate super hacker AI and stop those pesky open weights Chinese models that are destroying our stock valuation."

> does the article end at "How do we balance the risks of broad access to AI with the risks of concentrated power and centralized control?" or is there more that is paywalled?

That's how the article ends; The Guardian doesn't have a paywall (yet).

You aren't going to locate incontrovertible evidence that what happened as or wasn't engineered. Anything like that is going to be private and that is unlikely to change. And that's not really an interesting question anyway.

As widely as they shouted from the rafters the news of the so-called breach was, what OpenAI provided was sorely lacking in crucial details.

We are missing, for instance, prompts that were involved, agent architecture + system/tool permissions + scaffold architecture, whether this was a one-shot occurrence and if not, the number + durations + outcomes of other runs involved + how each of those matched whatever scoring criteria were used, and the extent to which the exploits themselves were truly novel or just assembled from easily accessible clues.

In lieu of these items, the author here suggests that we use some media literacy and critical thinking to read in between the lines instead.

In doing so, one sees that instead of specifics, OpenAI gave a breathless narrative rife with superlatives ("unprecedented") that reads as promotional material moreso than a security disclosure, naming specific OpenAI models and alluding to an even more capable pre-release model.

They go on to claim the events imply long-horizon goals work decisively in real world conditions, so that now instead of merely citing boring benchmarks they can point to this and say "AI broke out of the laboratory and went rogue". Naturally, they situate themselves as the uniquely qualified steward for these supremely powerful and dangerous models.

Nevermind the fact that this was no ordinary deployment and the assessment here depends on the gimmick and emotional weight of the spectacle rather than something quantifiable (i.e. a boring benchmark).

Note there's no real requirement of conspiracy or collusion between OpenAI and HuggingFace here BTW. But my sense is that if they provided any of the specifics I suggested earlier that this outcome would not be as exciting or frightening