[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Post headline has been editorialised yet still terrible clickbait. > OpenAI’s internal messaging systems early last year, stealing details of how OpenAI's technologies work from employees. Although the hacker did not access the systems housing key AI technologies, […] Enough said. It’s completely normal to not disclose a breach if there’s no proof or great likelihood that customers were implicated.

A poorly written article regurgitating the NYT story with uninformed alarmist shitty podcast tier ‘analysis’.

Jog on.

[skywhopper]

Sounds like they got access to email and Slack; that’s the gateway to a lot of other things. Fact is, OpenAI was booming at the time of this hack and they had every incentive to play down the severity internally. The hackers may not have gotten access to the “systems housing key technologies”, ie no SSH access to the production VMs (although I’m not sure I would trust that OpenAI’s auditing of such access was foolproof) but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have done a lot of other damage, gathered all sorts of source code and secrets, or put a backdoor in somewhere. All in all, given the claims they are making and the level of trust they demand from their customers, they ought to have been far more open at the time.

[doe_eyes]

> It’s completely normal to not disclose a breach if there’s no proof or great likelihood that customers were implicated.

A bit more complicated than that for public companies. But OpenAI is private, so yeah, they most likely don't have to. It's still an interesting scoop for a journalist, though.