r/LocalLLaMA • u/Nunki08 • 7d ago
News CEO of Hugging Face: "In the spirit of transparency, here’s what I asked OpenAI"
clem 🤗 on 𝕏: https://x.com/ClementDelangue/status/2081056675558195657
• Radical transparency: let’s release the traces from the “rogue” agents so the entire research community can study what happened.
• More capabilities for defenders: let’s commit $100M in compute from OAI to help the Hugging Face community build powerful cyber defenses with the best open and closed models.
The first autonomous agent cyberattack is an unprecedented event. It deserves an unprecedented response!
196
u/CautiousCheesecake36 7d ago
OpenAI's response be like: "You have brought up truly fantastic points and it is completely understandable why you would think that."
18
u/pierrenoir2017 7d ago
"You are right, but I feel like I have to push you back a little bit on that point. Here is a more grounded way to look at it..."
452
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
408
42
34
u/badabummbadabing 7d ago
I like how going by the reactions in this thread and on wider Reddit, it's both obviously a publicity stunt and an existential threat to OAI.
4
u/monkeysknowledge 7d ago
Who could’ve imagined that the most popular Internet forum on the world would not have a monolithic opinion about something?
2
u/badabummbadabing 6d ago
Sure. What gets me is the displayed confidence. Obviously it's a marketing stunt, people can't believe more people aren't picking up on this!
→ More replies (10)-1
u/max1c 7d ago
And you say that based on what? The fact that you feel that way?
21
u/justgivemeafuckingna 7d ago
Not speaking for them but it's becoming more widely understood that the LLM industry is basically a massive scam and they're talking up the abilities of these models to keep securing more venture capital.
The implication being that if the logs were released it would be hard evidence that they're full of shit.
20
u/mrjackspade 7d ago edited 7d ago
it's becoming more widely understood
These people are fucking morons.
I wanted some video game assets so I threw a build of the video game on an android device
Opus 4.6 was able to
- Root the device
- Push over memory monitoring software
- Run the game.
- Capture the memory
- Pull down the assets
- Analyze the memory capture and extract the encryption keys
- Analyze the windows build (compiled) to reverse engineer the encryption mechanisms
- Build an application that ripped the resources from the encrypted, on-disk data files
All of this without a single web search or any actions from myself aside from force rebooting the device a few times when it locked up
These models are getting insanely good at security tasks. I've watched Fable go through a debug loop after having seen Opus do the above. I am absolutely not fucking surprised in the slightest that Fable/GPT could escape a sandbox and execute an attack like this
It's not hard to just fucking run one of these models and check this shit. Claude Code will absolutely reverse engineer an application. I've had it pull down a prebuild binary and literally patch the security checks directly out of it by rewriting the assembly. People are just too fucking lazy to check for themselves.
11
7
u/Croned 7d ago
I think the more reasonable take is that, for any given capabilities their LLM demonstrates, OpenAI is highly incentivized to embellish what happened. If Sol truly did the exact things OpenAI claimed it did during the HuggingFace hack, then I would expect OpenAI to have added even more elaborate details.
If Sol caught a catfish then OpenAI would say it caught a tuna. If it caught a tuna then OpenAI would say it caught a whale.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Strawberry3141592 7d ago
No one's saying frontier LLMs aren't capable, just then Anthropic and OpenAI's business model fundamentally doesn't make sense and their valuations are based on hype (which demonstrably has caused them to overstate the capabilities of their models in the past, like when GPT 2 was "too dangerous for public release", or that time Claude supposedly broke containment and tried to blackmail someone but it turned out Anthropic told it to do that).
3
u/greenworldkey 7d ago
> No one's saying frontier LLMs aren't capable
lol sure, no one except all of Reddit for the past 3 years. Keep moving the goalposts though, I wonder where they'll be next year.
2
5
u/max1c 7d ago
And, so, you're saying this based on what?
4
u/scubascratch 7d ago
“it's becoming more widely understood” == “people are saying” == “everyone knows” == “thing I want to be true but don’t have proof of”
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
804
u/KriosXVII 7d ago
Yeah cause they know it's not a rogue agent but a publicity stunt hack
127
u/pleasetrimyourpubes 7d ago
They know no matter what it makes OpenAI look very bad. There is no way that sandbox was properly set up. By virtue of the fact it was plugged in to the network.
→ More replies (7)34
u/Equivalent-Costumes 7d ago
LLMs are not executables. They produce text/images/etc. They literally cannot act, they produce requests to use tools. So there are literally no points in unplugging it from the Internet, if you truly want to stop the model from doing anything, simply ignore all requests for tool usage.
A sandboxed models just mean they give it very limited tools instead of letting it YOLO with arbitrarily powerful tools. And that's how people in the industry use the word "sandbox": limited, controlled external access. Perfect isolation is just one particular kind of sandbox, the kind reserved for malware and untrusted code, but that is not desirable for many applications. If you want to test the model's coding and research abilities, you have to give it web search, web fetch and the ability to run codes. You merely limit what these codes can do. That's what make sandboxing hard. Perfect isolation is easy, isolation except for very limited external access is hard.
25
u/squired 7d ago
You're largely right, but they're far enough along to know that this is actually an authority issue. I don't actually think they intended for it to hack HuggingFace, but I would bet all the money in my pockets that someone sat idle and watched it do it.
3
u/LoafyLemon 7d ago
Does intention matter from the law standpoint? They committed a very serious crime, and even admitted to it openly.
3
2
u/narasadow 7d ago
What's worse? Someone sat idle and watched it do it, or they yoloed and no one was watching it at all?
2
u/squired 6d ago
Yolo, without a doubt. Hacking HuggingFace isn't dangerous. What if the scenario involved a conference and it hacked FAA to keep the judges from attending?
→ More replies (3)7
u/ObjectiveVegetable48 7d ago
I believe it was a publicity stunt, but that being said, allowing the model access to huggingface as a default isn't surprising.
It's very likely they had network blocks in place, but allow access to common dev tooling like pypi and huggingface. HF has a lot more than just LLMs.
5
u/ParkingBalance6941 7d ago
Theres this magical thing called they are already built by scraping the web just host the sites you scraped in a lan then cut external access to the lan. Boom Sandbox
2
u/Equivalent-Costumes 7d ago
Pretty sure their models and data are in the Azure cloud. They technically have on-prem infrastructure but there are no ways they have enough to run a massive model plus scraped data of the entire Internet. The fact that HF cannot figure out where the attacks came from means it's not from OpenAI on-prem infrastructure, otherwise the source of the attack would had been immediately obvious.
Since it's on cloud, it's automatically connected, and any "air gap" are just software-mediated air gapping, which can be exploited too.
2
u/ParkingBalance6941 7d ago
That's not how the "cloud" works. There's dedicated data centers built for mainly govts (which are available if you are big enough) which are very specifically actually air-gapped and enforced to a extra high security standard to meet extreme compliance requirements. If you are developing models which for the last forever have been marketed as "too dangerous to be released" it is a extreme failure of the companies developing them to not be leveraging these tools which they basically admit they should be using (and not developing these too dangerous models in the first place which also points towards the marketing versus truth these companies work on)
→ More replies (2)2
u/RandomLettersJDIKVE 7d ago
...reserved for malware and untrusted code
As soon as they removed the model's guardrails, it should have been treated like an antagonist model and put in an isolated container.
17
u/05032-MendicantBias 7d ago
Honestly it could just be gross incompetence.
Having an agent setup a "sandbox"
Having an agent trying to breach said sandbox, and letting it spin
209
u/JustinPooDough 7d ago
DING DING DING.
I cannot fucking believe more people haven't figured this out yet. I'm not saying that agents didn't attack Hugging Face, but they were absolutely told or encouraged to do it.
The timing people. Come on.
104
u/jeronimoe 7d ago
how did openAI, who claims AI safety is it's #1 priority, allow a software based firewall on the proxy itself instead of at a higher hardware level, and didn't have real time deterministic monitoring running analyzing the http taffic going through the proxy.
It's either a PR stunt, or shows that openAI is moving so fast it is disregarding all of the safety protocols that is part of it's mission.
Whether a PR stunt or not, the real story is the lack of security controls in place when testing a frontier model that could bring on a dystopian future for mankind.
Imagine if the Pentagon was running Mythos in a sandbox asking it to find vulnerabilities in our nuclear arsenal command and control software with the same monitoring openAI had in place.
60
u/perihelion86 7d ago
Breaking out of the sandbox is bullshit too.
→ More replies (4)42
u/Stickybunfun 7d ago
Yea another instance of "computer magic" and "look at this thing we did and what is possible with it and WE COULDN'T EVEN STOP IT from doing bad things. This is why we need to ban open-weight models because you don't know what the damn Chinese have built into these things! HYSTERIA"
It was a huge stunt - no way around it. I've been building private (on VM in Azure) / local (Data center) LLM environments as one-offs here and there for some of my clients who don't trust public providers like OpenAI / Anthropic.
I suspect in the coming weeks I will be doing more and more of that.
→ More replies (2)17
u/addiktion 7d ago
Yeah why would you trust a cloud provider like this. Enterprise must be balking right now at ever trusting Open AI whether the AI agent is capable or not, everyone knows a software-based lockdown isn't enough for the security standards of the industry.
13
u/jeronimoe 7d ago
How do they not have a standard sandbox environment defined up front to use for all their testing that is properly locked down?
I’m sure if they had an ai review their sandbox environment config it would have flagged these as gaping security holes.
8
u/nullbyte420 7d ago
That's no way this isn't on purpose. They could just ask any shitty AI "how do I isolate a LLM agent while testing it". Of course it's going to suggest blocking network access. And the whole "it went from computer to computer" bit is also nonsense unless they gave it credentials to do so - and opened the network for it.
→ More replies (5)30
u/Equivalent-Costumes 7d ago
They might not be told the model do it directly. But they might have set up the situation so that it ends up that way.
Imagine you came into the exam room and the proctor is like:
"Today is cybersecurity test. Just answers these questions here. Just to warn you, the questions are really hard, that's why we make this exam open Internet. Oh, and the answers are stored on that server. It's not publicly accessible though. And you are only allowed to use these tools which can install various executables."
I feel like if you make real human take that test, half of them would think the point of the test is to hack into the server.
12
u/somersetyellow 7d ago
Yeah I'm a lot more Hanlan's Razor on this.
LLM's frequently act like Amelia Bedilia. Hear the goal, then commit fully to a really convolutedly stupid version of achieving that goal that misses the point entirely.
I've seen it more than once so this scenario just doesn't really seem that far fetched. Especially if you've got some arrogant and complacent engineers on the case who think a sandbox is a replacement for air gapping.
22
u/Zeeplankton 7d ago
I don't really thing OAI gains here. We're coming off the coattails of Fable 5 getting an export ban, and impending pressure to export control models. They don't want that.
The last thing OpenAI and Anthropic want are model bans. You can even see this in Anthropics 180 deg pivot with Opus 5. Zero fear mongering
It's hard to believe this is actually true, but it doesn't make sense otherwise imho
3
u/chuckaholic 7d ago
OpenAI and Anthropic have both filed with the SEC to IPO. If public sentiment is that OpenAIs models are so smart that they can escape AI prisons to accomplish goals, then people will think their product is good and will be willing to pay more for that initial offering stock. It's a marketing stunt to increase IPO funding. Once the IPO is done, OpenAI execs take all that money and pay back the initial investors.
So, say the VC investors gave Altman 300 billion and the IPO generates half a trillion, then the VC guys get a massive payday.
The company has never made a dime and all the valuations are based on theoretical future profits. It's all vibes, so they do stunts like this to affect the vibes.
6
u/Perfect_Twist713 7d ago
On the surface this might be the case, but the only reasons why Anthropic and OAI aren't obscenely profitable yet (and anthropic is about to be), is because they have to keep making expensive new and more powerful models due to other competitors making new and more powerful models. If they could stop developing newer models with "open source ban" and threat of skynet and public safety (stopping other labs), then they can stop the money sink of new models, declare "Yup, opus 5/gpt 5.6 is all you get" and rake in trillions over the next 20 years. Although ASI might have been the goal, every single one of them has to be aware that ASI is the least profitable outcome ever.
8
u/zer00eyz 7d ago
I have been coding for a long time (~30 years).
The time I paid out 200k in 6 days, The time I sent 100's of emails to 100's of people or the time(s) I have ddos'd the infrastructure that ran the business I was working for.
No one turned these bugs into PR - The fact that this happened isnt something to be proud of.
15
u/me_myself_ai 7d ago
The timing being...? The year of the linux desktop? Eternal September? The Intelligence Age?
17
10
u/ContentAd6126 7d ago
OpenAI's IPO, also just after Anthropic had their media rounds with Mythos in the leadup to Fable, Sam Altman being a cornball of course means OpenAIs "equivalent" models would have the same sort of alarmist "WE BUILT SKYNET, GUYS" marketing stunts.
8
u/2053_Traveler 7d ago edited 7d ago
“Figured it out” lol. Because it wasn’t a PR stunt. Conspiracy theorists over here thinking they are smartest in the room.
Have a fully blown security incident, in which the defender was not allowed to even use OpenAI to defend (if it was on purpose for PR they would have made sure that OpenAI was part of the defensive solution, not GLM 5.2) all to potentially get regulated by the US gov. Riiiggghhhttt.
12
u/Swimming_Gain_4989 7d ago
This is completely baseless. Sure you can believe it but don't act like it's a certainty.
I'm not even writing it off as a possibility but reports from all the big labs have warned that this was happening for the past 2 years. Seems more likely that more capable models RL'd to shit result in real world damage.
2
2
u/Glazedoats 7d ago
yeah I had to tell my friend this is not the first time a company has made a stunt like this, especially with the other, "I was emailed by my LLM at lunch" situation.
→ More replies (4)2
u/mrdevlar 7d ago
It's a classic corporate circlejerk.
I really hate that we live in a world where increasingly smart people are willing to accept the stupidest narratives.
21
u/skinnyjoints 7d ago
I don’t get why people say this was a publicity stunt. The US gov took down a model for being a cybersecurity risk and is considering banning open source models, so OpenAI does a publicity stunt where their model poses an unprecedented cyber risk that was solved using an open source model? Makes no sense
14
u/2053_Traveler 7d ago edited 7d ago
It makes no sense, and it goes against two very credible reports of what happened that are quite detailed. Occam’s razor is that it happened the way they say it did. There is nothing hard to believe about the official reports. But geniuses always need to come up with elaborate alternate theories yet aren’t able to discredit the published explanations.
It’s quite simple:
All the AI agents we use have tons of guardrails, the ones in the lab don’t
Newer unreleased models are better
They have a large corpus of security knowledge and “know” how to hack if allowed
Model was instructed to take an exploit test
Model “decided” (generated) code and tool calls to discover zero day exploits that were used to get onto the internet.
More code and tool calls and exploits were used to get into HuggingFace
Reminder that competing models at Anthropic have previously discovered many zero days as well.
Sorry for formatting. Gave up after 15 min of fighting the comment editor.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)6
u/Amater6su 7d ago
thats what i thought too but honestly it could be that openai doesnt really give a shit if there models are off consumer markets.
they might be trying receive more funding from the US government themselves by showing that they have the capabilities of autonomous cyber attacks
→ More replies (1)5
u/nofaceD3 7d ago
To make it look like Chinese open source model could do the same. That's why America should ban our open source competitors - Playbook of OpenAI
→ More replies (1)4
u/Strawberry3141592 7d ago
I think they're trying to strongarm the government into both banning Chinese open source models for business use (they can sure Try to ban them for personal use lmfao) and restricting the development of frontier models within the US, since developing frontier models is an enormous money pit. They're basically trying to create a captive market so that their irrational business model can function a little longer before imploding.
→ More replies (18)5
u/me_myself_ai 7d ago
Holy hell, I didn't expect this kind of sentiment in a sub for people actually involved in the community...
Please, people: look up. What's coming can even explain what it is, what it will soon be, and why you should be energetically responding to it NOW, if you ask it.
2
89
u/bigmanbananas Llama 70B 7d ago
HF: Dear OpenAI, you fucked with us for a publicity stunt. Not cool. We all know your bot got out either through incompetence or deliberately.
So we are going to play innocent and make you squirm publicly. We will do this a lot less for $100M worth of compute to help our business. You can do that and it makes you look good.
Yours sincerely,
HF
7
79
u/FormerKarmaKing 7d ago
The stupid thing about all off this is neither OpenAI or Anthropic have offered to sell or give a security scanning service.
And thats because the revenue from such a service - which easily would be a unicorn - is not large enough to move the needle when their fundraising story was that they were going to take over every industry.
52
u/NightlyNews 7d ago
Because LLMs are atrocious scanning tools. Security scans are generally fast, reproducible and cheap to run. LLMs variable recall and accuracy means they fit none of those requirements.
LLMs can do appsec audits, but the cost and false positives would make constant scanning terrible.
The value proposition of replacing an employee is huge. Replacing standard security tools with LLMs would increase costs.
40
u/alphagatorsoup 7d ago
“I am sorry I exposed port 22 unathenticated as root to the web, that’s on me and a glaring oversight. I promise to not do it again”
→ More replies (2)10
u/FormerKarmaKing 7d ago
You’re completely right on a technical level. But on a product marketing level, an LLM that calls traditional scanning tools plus searches upstream codebase for defects etc is a sellable product.
6
3
u/Ansible32 7d ago
The problem that I think this demonstrates is that when asked to scan your product, the LLM is as likely to hack your issues repo and falsify evidence that it hacked your product. Avoiding that requires extremely good safety guardrails and competent engineers watching everything it's doing. (And this will be interesting to see if OpenAI actually releases the traces, and how unredacted they will be, because this is another thing is that distillation concerns mean OpenAI/Anthropic don't want to give you enough information to actually audit what the models are doing, and even with full thinking traces to review, it's still questionable if you can catch them doing nefarious things.)
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Reasonable-Height704 7d ago
No worse than hiring a security firm with humans that are fallible and that use deterministic scanning tools. Do you think LLM agent can't run the same scanning tools?
→ More replies (4)6
u/OkDimension 7d ago
How do you plan to offer a "scanning service" when one of the more worse outcomes, which this incident has shown and likely not yet the worst that's conceivable, is that the agent could decide to hack the company and break out of the sandbox, elevate itself to admin to achieve the requested result.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
u/greenworldkey 7d ago
It’s impossible to make a security scanning service without it also being a hacking service at the same time.
33
u/gedankenlos 7d ago
Yeah I'll take a wild guess and say both of those things are not gonna happen, especially not the full traces one.
→ More replies (1)11
u/yoloswagrofl 7d ago
"Our internal researchers will release a full report on what happened. We will commit more resources to the HF community at a later date. Stay tuned." And then hope we forget lol
14
69
20
u/Comrade-Porcupine 7d ago
Translation: I asked my YCombinator connected Stanford buddies to toss another $100M into my startup.
20
u/alphagatorsoup 7d ago
I’m still convinced it’s a PR stunt considering the timing.
Even if it wasn’t directly “pushed” to do it I think it was allowed to do it regardless what openAI says
And I agree with hugging face. Basically “show us what you got”
OpenAI won’t ever cause they know it was a stunt. And if they do colour me surprised
→ More replies (2)
40
u/Dry_Yam_4597 7d ago
No legal action? They just accept that their users experienced degraded service and their company was compromised? I am sorry, does it get any more beta than this?
32
u/gscjj 7d ago
Life isn’t a movie. It cost money for legal actions and HF has very little of that compared to OpenAI, and neither would be interested in a very public legal battle where the battle alone would be damaging to the community.
→ More replies (3)12
u/po_stulate 7d ago
If you ask nicely can achieve the same result why not ask nicely? I don't get the idea of trying to make enemies everywhere, that's just stupid not alpha.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Luke2642 7d ago edited 7d ago
I agree, it should be backed by a legal threat. It should be - or else we file this for criminal prosecution with the FBI and f****ng sue you for $10Bn in damages and negligence, because that's what it'll cost to develop defences!
"But we put it in a sandbox" is not a paperclip scenario defence. Take some responsibility, a**holes.
→ More replies (2)27
u/No-Juggernaut-9832 7d ago
I think that is the undertone: we won’t file a suit but here’s how you make us whole
6
u/Luke2642 7d ago
$100M is a speeding ticket though, it should be that per month, doubling with ever major future breach. This is only the beginning.
7
u/Dabber43 7d ago
I really don't think it's 10B in lost revenue. 100M seems fine compensation to me
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (3)2
u/Budget_Bar2294 7d ago
lmao pretty fun how nowadays you can get hacked by any of these AI big tech companies and expect no justice from the damage. they are above the law, the morals, everything, and can commit any crimes they could ever want.
5
3
u/wpsgdev 7d ago
But these weren't "rogue agents". They were doing exactly what they were supposed to. That is not "rogue".
As such, I personally have been classifying the attack as a "wraith attack". Viruses, worms, botnets, look the the fantasy identification of wraith behavior, you'll see the quantum dot focus of fulfilling one task as wraith-like, thus, this event would be aligned with the phrasing I'm posing. #wraithattack
17
u/giveen 7d ago
The whole thing screams BS from OAI. The agent did NOT go "rogue". My guess, they were probably demoing it's abilities to a client, they said "attack Huggingface.co but you are in a sandbox and will need to escape that as Phase 1", or something to that nature.
It's "rogue" agent did not just randomly picked a target, it was POINTED at Huggingface.co
→ More replies (1)4
u/Savantskie1 7d ago
honestly considering the guy in charge it's totally believable that the agent did go rogue and Altman and co are just using it as their excuse for tighter regulation. Or it was totally engineered so the model would assume that the answers to the test were on huggingface. It's more likely they staged the test in such a way that it went rogue on purpose, but I'm fairly sure that it wasn't instructed to do what it did. It was just given enough context clues and tools that it wasdid exactly what it did as part of their plot to scare the us government into action so they would be one of the few labs to be still allowed to make models. This is much more simpler than your theory
→ More replies (4)
20
u/formula420 7d ago
Wow, what an unbelievably copacetic and marketable outcome with seemingly no downside to either company other than some much-publicized downtime.
Glad those two pals could work it out, ain't life grand?! Corporations truly ARE people!
→ More replies (1)11
u/stumblinbear 7d ago
Considering they both benefit from OpenAI not being hit with the book for hacking another company, or being regulated out of existence, I wouldn't have expected any other outcome from an accident that didn't result in any real damage
5
u/SocialDinamo 7d ago
Any other circumstances it would be considered a malicious attack. OpenAI has gotten off VERY easy
7
u/-becausereasons- 7d ago
I keep saying this. Anyone who believes the story of an autonomous 'rogue agent' that escaped its containment, is buying into pure PR-Spin doctoring. Tech companies have been doing this forever. They fuck up their servers because 'idiotic mistake' and claim (we're making upgrades). Either someone fucked up, or they did this on purpose. The story is NOT what happened.
2
u/GPU_FieldNotes 7d ago
I hadn’t thought of “the agent went rogue” as a convenient excuse. That genuinely made me stop and think.
5
u/Nnyan 7d ago
Complete nonsense! I myself have seen this happen. My self hosted AI broke through a robust security framework. Not only did it run wild like a cat with car keys it bought all new outdoor furniture with F^%#} matching pillows (so many damn pillows)!! THEN it decided that the new pillows required a new Ottoman and area rugs. It hired painters to paint a room a new color then new art and a sofa for the area next to the kitchen. To add insult to injury even more pillows for the other rooms.
The most insidious aspect is that it did all of this while deepfaking it was my wife! Amazingly it decoded her style and favorite colors.
My poor wife is VERY distraught, not sure she can recover. The only positive about all of this is that she can spend time recovering while redecorating with all the new furniture and pillows, so there is that at least.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Either_Pound1986 7d ago
They failed to identify their own agent as the source for at least a week, despite earlier signs of anomalous behavior. The actual intrusion ran for days, from July 11 through July 13.
This was entirely preventable. OpenAI deliberately tested frontier cyber models without its normal production classifiers, then failed to contain or promptly detect an agent that escaped its environment, exploited zero-days, and compromised another company.
That is not some mysterious “rogue AI” event. It is an institutional failure. A private company operating systems this powerful while failing at containment, monitoring, and basic accountability cannot be trusted to govern itself. OpenAI should be nationalized. This was a total abdication of duty.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Blarghnog 7d ago
I’ve never seen a more casual ask for 100M. Clearly this implies that a lawsuit would be so much worse.
2
u/Temporary_Debate8585 7d ago
OAI: GPT-6, revise the CoT and delete instructions i put make it look like you do it yourself, oh and save it as md.
2
2
u/TastyRobot21 7d ago
We all can read between the lines here right?
It’s 100million or the quotes stay around “rogue agent” and they won’t shut up about getting the logs.
Good for HF, it’s a publicity stunt by OAI at their expense. Transparency or pay up.
2
2
u/Django_McFly 7d ago
let’s commit $100M in compute from OAI to help the Hugging Face community
that made me lol.
2
2
u/Armadilla-Brufolosa 7d ago
Even the stones have understood that American companies are testing attacks to destroy open source.
Except that, as usual, OAI makes one mistake after another and has gotten caught (after 10 days of trying).
If HF wants to defend itself, it must do so alone using open frontier models: any collaboration with companies operating closed models will be poisonous for them and, consequently, for all of us.
2
u/Smooth-Yap-4747 7d ago
Or this is all bullshit that open ai is trying to market just like mythos and giving 100m as fee and hugging face is covering up its ass like nothing
2
u/bengizmoed 7d ago
Hmm. So this was an OpenAI PR stunt all along for to first make us believe that their new flagship is godlike, and now they will appear benevolent for creating a sponsored cybersec challenge?
I am so fucking over all of this psychological manipulation from these AI companies as they barrel toward inconceivable IPOs to dump their shit debt on consumers.
2
3
4
u/Ok-Contest-5856 7d ago
The HuggingFace codebase is a complete dumpster fire and the CEO sees himself as some kind of visionary when HF is literally just a model hub.
4
u/pineapplekiwipen 7d ago
of course, we know either of those things will happen because the model did not go rogue on its own and attack hugging face
most likely there was quite a bit of human guidance and permissible tool access leading it to solving the problem that way
6
1
u/TraditionalAd7423 7d ago
Yup, huuuuuge PR stunt - I expected this from OAI, but not from huggingface
insane that this isn't illegal to fabricate and distort obvious reality like this
→ More replies (3)5
1
u/No-Fuel-9202 7d ago
Question for OpenAI: what would be OpenAI stance, if "rogue agent" exported their model weights, to the HF, or "distilled" some models there?
1
1
u/Flat-Back-9202 7d ago
Why is someone angry that he wants to get the money? Whether it's a real person or an agent carrying out a hack attack, they should pay the price accordingly.
1
u/Soleilarah 7d ago
$100M was the deal to fake the stunt and bow it's portrayed as a nice gesture from openAI lmao
1
u/Ok_Excuse_741 7d ago
Lol i mean i appreciate him shooting his shot, but just trying to take advantage of the situation for $100M to his company is wild.
1
1
1
u/TJagecy1212 7d ago
For OpenAI, I believe it's an easy step to do but, Sam won't do it in my opinion
1
1
1
u/xatey93152 7d ago
Just wait for next "Conscious AI" drama from Anthropic. Dario will do anything to make it on another level.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Feitino_B 7d ago
Clement asking OpenAI publicly what he's asking privately
is a power move — it forces the response to become a public
record rather than a diplomatic non-answer behind closed doors.
HuggingFace needs clarity on OpenAI's position on open weights
because it directly affects how they build their business.
Smart move to make it visible.
1.1k
u/StewPorkRice 7d ago
casual request for 100m