fwiw, i’m going to stop talking about the openai thing. we made our points pretty clearly, one final note. to hackers: 1. most serious companies will receive good-faith research like this gracefully and treat you well. they don’t question your intent or threaten you, they look at your profile, your history, and the work itself, and that usually estables bridge quiet quickly. 2. yes, some of the "old and outdated people who are not following the state of vdp," as someone put it, are right about the risky waters. don’t randomly test every company, stick to top companies. nd yes, they are right about pivoting too, opening pr is one thing, cloning openai’s source code or exfiling ci secrets and starting to hunt for model weights would obviously be a crazy step too far. 3. have your own disclosure policy, i will attach down below ours, 30/90 days, whatever you believe is reasonable. personally, i wouldn’t sell my sole or sell away control of my research for money, being able to show your work publicly goes very far. you can call that chasing fame. i call it keeping my agency over my own work and proudly showing people what we built. 4. when you choose to publish, understand that publication is opposite of what a ciso wants, occasionally people will become antagonistic. try to talk sense into them, a vdp does not have to become an embarrassing story, it can become a great one. case in point, google cloud had nasty bugs disclosed publicly all the time, researchers wrote detailed posts about them, and google celebrates security research every year, highlights top bugs, and has people like @LiveOverflow make videos about them. Hacking into Google's Network for $133,337: piped.video/watch?v=g-JgA1hv… StubZero: $148,337 RCE in Google Cloud Production brutecat.com/articles/google… --- to security leaders: 1. please, you don’t need to be asinine. 2. researchers are doing something useful for society and for your company, even when they also have their own interests 3. treat them well, learn from google or meta, vulnerability research works best as a collaboration, not a threatening relationship

🔥THE ENERGY IS STILL HIGH! @marver took the stage with:“The Singularity Doesn’t Care About Leaking Your Data: From Prompt Injection to Posthuman Recon-A Field Report on Attacking AI in 2026.”🤖A fascinating deep dive into attacking AI & the perfect pairing with beers & red wine!

We want to celebrate with people using GPT-6. We did this for GPT-5.5 and it was really fun. We’re getting together in SF on September 16 to talk about the model, what we should build next, and mostly just to hang out. Apply by Sep 10: gpt6-launch-event.openai.cha…

tristan buckmaster just published a statement that is, if accurate, one of the ugliest things i’ve read out of a frontier lab. not because of the math. because of what happened after openai found out two people were about to beat them to the punch. buckmaster and levent alpöge spent a year pushing the córdoba / martínez-zoroa program to smooth forcing. august 15 they got blowup for boussinesq and 3d euler. lean-verified august 22. they were paying openai out of pocket and dumping every draft into private codex sessions. the program is obscure. almost nobody else was on it. this was not “paste the clay problem into a chatbot.” then this: > thursday sept 3, buckmaster emails openai privately. rumors are flying. he is trying to stop a mess, not start one. > they reply the same day: give us details so we can “avoid competing.” also, want free compute? > sunday they suddenly need a call “at any point today.” sebastien bubeck gets on. levent is not invited. > openai says an internal model has a ~100-page proof of forced navier–stokes blowup. fefferman options c and d. the exact route buckmaster and alpöge had quietly chosen. > they show him a prompt and claim the model was “simply given the problem statement.” levent is told “very little human input.” > that falls apart on the same call. a whole team had been on it. they started on the unforced problem, warmed the model up on easier equations including euler, and even the prompt they showed him was written by prompting codex. > he asks when the first prompt went out. they stall. then agree: the past few days. after information about his work reached openai. > he asks whether the model was trained on, or had access to, the private codex sessions where they put every draft of this project. > answer: the model does not look up user data. > he asks again. about training. > no answer. then it stops being a science story and becomes an hr story. > offer 1: you post euler. we post navier–stokes the next day. > offer 2: after you post euler, you alone write the navier–stokes paper, credit our model, and we cut levent. > bubeck says twice he wants levent removed from authorship because he works at anthropic. he declines both. he says if they release it that way, he goes public. the reply is not a scientific objection. > “why would you ruin your career?” > “if you don’t want me to be nice, then i don’t have to be nice.” later, a text to levent proposing a one-on-one: > “i don’t know if tristan is being fully rational right now.” that is not how you treat a collaborator. that is how you split one. openai got word two researchers were closing a path almost nobody else was on. they spun up a team on that exact path. they would not answer whether the researchers’ unpublished drafts in openai’s product were used. they tried to dictate the announcement order. they tried to remove a coauthor because he works at a competitor. when that failed, someone reached for a career threat. this is a lab finding out academics were about to publish, sprinting the same narrow program, refusing the data question, and trying to manage credit around a rival affiliation. really slimy if even half of this holds. what the fuck is happening.