It's true there's a sense in which you can't blame OpenAI's CISO for narrowly defending his company's corporate interests by pressuring the
@HacktronAI guys to downplay having accessed the OpenAI monorepo and having positioned themselves to move laterally in pursuit of model weights, data sets, and training recipes.
That seems to be
@jachiam0's angle here. Respectfully, this misses the larger story -- that OAI is pursuing superintelligence, admits it's as dangerous and impactful as nuclear fuel rods, and yet seems to be at the cobbled together security maturity of a high velocity blitzscale-up.
The public deserves to know all that and having us know that required exactly what the Hacktron guys did.
The public -- and the government -- absolutely needs to know, and, really, in as dramatic and "stunt"-like a fashion as necessary to get people's attention, how permeable OpenAI appears to be, given the societal scale of its implications. It matters to all of us if we're on track for training recipes and weights for GPT-9 to get easily stolen, and it appears we are.
While I'm on topic, it's in our interest to know whether some new model could escape a eval environment and self replicate across the Internet. We need way more transparency on that too as compared to what OpenAI has provided.
For all those reasons we're lucky to have
@HacktronAI and we're lucky to have Huggingface, and ultimately - and soon - we need policy enforced transparency and rules -- somehow -- on all of this, across all frontier AI development.