What would "actual" evidence look like? I have a hard time believing that if they released the logs that people would take it more seriously. The temptation would be to say "they fabricated those for marketing". Just as they supposedly fabricated this story, no?
thye could describe in detail how the LLM did this. That would explain how much - if any - human in the loop was involved, was it comprimised credentials, did it find new exploits or use known ones, etc. Evidence would mean details, not a smoking gun.
They didn't fabricate it. They took off the security guardrails and told it to do some hacking, and they got the exact news-worthy story they wanted when it did exactly that. Everyone acts surprised.
They should release the full prompt. I believe that would be very telling, so they never will.
This is possible. Also it’s possible that there was a big human involvement. Or that there was something less exciting, but the pr department and hyping grifters at the company blown it out of proportions.
It would require collusion with HuggingFace, including getting them to release their disclosure blogpost a week in advance. Huggingface is primarily a hub for open models, so there's not really an incentive for them to jump through hoops/lie to provide marketing for OpenAI's (closed) models. So it's highly unlikely this is fabricated.
It's hilarious that people find the idea that these 2 would collude in making this elaborate PR scheme ridiculous. As if the psychopaths like Sama and the rest of his ilk wouldn't ever dream of doing something companies have been doing since time immemorial.
> We will continue to conduct a thorough investigation alongside Hugging Face and will share more details on the vulnerabilities, incident, and findings when our investigation is complete.
If they break that promise we can justifiably yell at them about it.
What would "actual" evidence look like? I have a hard time believing that if they released the logs that people would take it more seriously. The temptation would be to say "they fabricated those for marketing". Just as they supposedly fabricated this story, no?
thye could describe in detail how the LLM did this. That would explain how much - if any - human in the loop was involved, was it comprimised credentials, did it find new exploits or use known ones, etc. Evidence would mean details, not a smoking gun.
They didn't fabricate it. They took off the security guardrails and told it to do some hacking, and they got the exact news-worthy story they wanted when it did exactly that. Everyone acts surprised.
They should release the full prompt. I believe that would be very telling, so they never will.
This is possible. Also it’s possible that there was a big human involvement. Or that there was something less exciting, but the pr department and hyping grifters at the company blown it out of proportions.
It would require collusion with HuggingFace, including getting them to release their disclosure blogpost a week in advance. Huggingface is primarily a hub for open models, so there's not really an incentive for them to jump through hoops/lie to provide marketing for OpenAI's (closed) models. So it's highly unlikely this is fabricated.
It's hilarious that people find the idea that these 2 would collude in making this elaborate PR scheme ridiculous. As if the psychopaths like Sama and the rest of his ilk wouldn't ever dream of doing something companies have been doing since time immemorial.
OpenAI are promising more details in the future:
> We will continue to conduct a thorough investigation alongside Hugging Face and will share more details on the vulnerabilities, incident, and findings when our investigation is complete.
If they break that promise we can justifiably yell at them about it.