Those reports deserve independent scrutiny, particularly because some originate with interested companies.

This is where it all gets a little tinfoil hatty for me. The timeline is that huggingface detected a hack, shut down the hack, and reported it to the FBI. Days later, OpenAI discovered that their AI was the source of the attack.

I don’t know how to explain this without risk that I might be getting so pedantic that it comes off as patronizing. I’m not trying to, anyway.

HuggingFace detected an attack, took corrective action, and reported it. Days later, OpenAI released their statement. That’s typical behavior regardless of whether I’m right or not.

My point is that CEOs are financially incentivized. Look at what drives investment into AI companies — it’s a lot of hype. Hence the concern that we’re in an “AI bubble.” The “bubble” would be speculative investments based on hype.

My statements come from marrying the ideas that (1) CEOs are financially incentivized and (2) the value of their companies are current being driven by hype rather than demonstrated value. Therefore, what naturally leads is that you have CEOs with a financial incentive to maintain hype around the topic.

Are you implying that Huggingface and OpenAI were working together, and were willing to make a false FBI report for a PR stunt? That seems like a pretty extraordinary claim.

No, not at all. I’m implying (as I thought my prior questions made clear) that this could have been allowed to happen merely to demonstrate that it can happen. That might, for example, include having a “sandbox” (that isn’t properly air gapped) while doing “testing” (on penetration capabilities).

My argument could be inferred to suggest that OpenAI wouldn’t have cared if it were HuggingFace, Google, or some other actor.

This, to me, comes across much to the same tune as Mythos was being given by Anthropic. They touted its ability to find exploits in software, though it didn’t quite live up to scrutiny. The tout had an impact on stock valuation, though. Same with having Mythos pulled from foreign use for “national security” reasons, then only dropping Fable as the consumer facing version.

You can argue that these actions make sense when there’s an actual concern. Sure. My argument is that Anthropic, OpenAI, and others benefit from the concern, financially speaking. They want more concern. They want people to believe the shit they spew, because that maintains the value of their companies. They know that, which is why they frame these events as they do.

This isn’t a tinfoil hat conclusion. It’s a belief in uncoordinated, unethical behavior due to financial incentives. Furthermore, I’m pissed off that it caused so much more harm within communities than would be necessary. This is not an extraordinary claim. As I began in my earlier comment, it’s closer to “cultural stupidity.”

—-

I will have to give time to the rest of what you said. You make remarks insinuating that I dont know certain things, but honestly I in many cases would like to argue the point. It’s not that I “don’t know,” it’s that I believe differently than you do.

I’ll need to figure out how to respond without turning this into a Thomas Hobbes vs. John Bramhall situation.