[sfink]

The article, summarized: there are incentives for OpenAI to claim that their AI hacked its way out of their network and into Hugging Face.

Ok... and what?

Do you have any evidence for the claim being either true or false that you'd like to write an article about? I guess not. Without anything to add, this article reduces to "I has big brain and can see what you sheep cannot. Very big brain. Gullible sheep. Sucks to be you, sheep."

(For the record: I see the incentive. My guess is that it happened exactly as described. The main takeaways: (1) science fiction is now real, we should all be very afraid; and (2) OpenAI, which claims to have a God-given responsibility to get to AGI first to protect the world from danger, cannot be trusted with this foundational task even when it's in easy mode. The latter is true whether or not you believe in OpenAI's reasoning and purpose.)

[wrs]

I think you misread the article. The skepticism isn’t about whether it happened. It’s about whether it’s a reason for models to be locked behind “trusted partner” firewalls. Offensive hacking capabilities are the same as defensive. Hugging Face had to use a Chinese model to defend against this because they weren’t allowed to use OpenAI models to do it.

[sfink]

Ok, fair. I know that was also in the article, but your comment made me reread it, and I think you're right about the focus. I over-fixated on the headline. On second read, it's more like a lazy way to justify a preconceived idea that all models should be available and unconstrained to everyone (or everyone who might get attacked, at least, but that's approximately everyone.)

Updated tl;dr: "There are incentives for OpenAI to say that AI is powerful and dangerous, therefore fully unconstrained AIs should be available to everyone."

It's still more of a statement of belief than a logical argument.