[LordDragonfang]

I'm disappointed that this is the level of discourse happening here, when the default assumption is such conspiratorial thinking. I expect that from tiktok and low-information social media, not here.

When your default explanation for everything is "companies are lying about everything", you end up just as incorrect as believing they're always telling the truth.

It's not outlandish that models have these capabilities, the number of CVEs I see as a sysadmin has exploded and we're seeing novel math discoveries nearly every week now. OpenAI does not need to pretend to commit a felony to demonstrate it, that's pure conspiratorial thinking.

[dwoosley]

I don’t believe I argued that an LLM couldn’t find and exploit a vulnerability and even break out of some layer of technical controls. That seems realistic and has been demonstrated before and I mentioned that LLMs are used in offensive security work.

Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely, therefore, the last potential of this being either faked or carefully not avoided seems more likely than the others (based on the current information we have).

Could you clarify which point or assumption you are objecting to?

[LordDragonfang]

> Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely

No, if you review what you wrote, you did not. You stated your belief that this looks good for them, and aligns with their strategy, and then concluded it must mean this was done on purpose. Cui bono is not evidence, it identifies suspects. It is not evidence of malice over incompetence.

Evidence is taking a look at possibilities, and going "how would I expect the world to look if this were hypothesis true, before I learned these additional facts?", comparing it to what actual happened, and then you must divide it by how likely you think the hypothesis is, before said evidence.

Sam Altman intentionally positioning his company to commit a felony and be investigated by the authorities for days, just for clout, is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

Also, importantly, even if we think e.g. Sam Altman would do this, a corporation is not a person, it's operated by individuals with differing goals. I doubt Sam Altman personally is organizing every test of the model, and there is no reason to believe this specific test would be organized by him, as a prior, rather than by a normal security researcher, who presumably is less motivated by the company's bottom line.