They were literally caught making false reports to a murder investigation
replyAlmost everything in this comment is incorrect.
reply"They": no, it was Anthropic, not OpenAI.
"Were literally caught": no, they notified the police themselves
"making false reports to a murder investigation": this is the closest to the truth, but still a stretch. It was an anonymous tip line, not some formal report and the police said they never saw it: "its safeguarding processes stopped the fake tip from getting past its spam folder"[1]
Additionally, while I strongly agree Anthropic is responsible for its rogue agents I also think that claiming this is the same as people at OpenAI calling in the FBI for an investigation is a false equivalence.
I think it is important that both Anthropic and OpenAI are held to account for their actions. But I also think accusations should accurate.
Wasn't that Anthropic?
replyIn case anybody is wondering: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqkg50j1yd5lo
replyI guess I’m still wondering, because I did think this is what was being referred to but it is not a story about OpenAI.
replyCan you blame one for mixing them up at this point?
replyWe fuss over models being confidently wrong. Reasonable to apply the same standard to people.
replyYes? I mean, I don’t think it’s a character flaw to not know things, but their rivalry is extremely notorious and relevant. Someone who can't keep them straight won’t be able to understand what’s going on in AI.
replyIt could be that the reports are accurate and the device simply wasn’t as sophisticated as the statement implies. You could if you wanted use an AI model to analyze a USB camera with device name “John_Doe_1”.
reply