That feels less like "glossed over" and more "Headline is 33% false".

Oh, the headline is technically correct: there was an OpenAI incident that Irregular was involved with, disclosed shortly before the Hugging Face one.

> One thing glossed over in this article is that Irregular was not involved in the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident; this seems like important context to share.

Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you just really bad at writing or are you being argumentative for fun?

Stop being rude. There were multiple OAI hacking incidents. Irregular's evals were involved in some but not the HuggingFace hack. Hence Aesthesia is both accurate and precise.

Do you mean "Irregular was not involved (we know for certain)" or "Irregular was not involved (as far as we know)"?

There's very little reason to believe Irregular was involved in that incident, and the article presents no evidence to that effect. So it's "There's not a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars (as far as we know)."

We know for certain. The involvement of Irregular in the other cases was never a secret, they were quite open about what they were working on and the results of the evaluations were being published on their website.

Their disclosures in other cases is not evidence of non-involvement in this case.

Can you explain in what way you think they could possibly have been covertly involved?

OpenAI explicitly stated those were separate incidents: https://openai.com/index/third-party-cyber-evaluations-invol...

If you want to believe without evidence why bother to read articles? Faith doesn’t require that, but if you’re serious then a lack of evidence is important.

That's cause Irregular was not involved in that event, they were involved in a separate event OpenAI published here: https://openai.com/index/third-party-cyber-evaluations-invol...

In that article, OpenAI provides the context that this is a completely separate event from Hugging Face incident.

This was not glossed over. The rhetoric was carefully written and constructed to give the misleading impression of that, including a careful mention of the H-F incident inserted so the author can say that they did mention it, and constructed in a way which doesn't contradict that impression so readers don't realize that this 'debunking' is of some sideshows rather than the 'OpenAI hacking scandals': "Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned, about a similar OpenAI–Hugging Face hack, that a future swarm “could be capable of taking over the entire internet”". (Incredible use of 'similar' to downplay it.)

The important thing about OP is showing the latest stage in the politicization of the topic and the current stratagem being used to downplay the spate of incidents.

The article has shockingly bad reasoning driven by a clear desire to drive home a point (that AI safety doesn't matter/is a marketing exercise), as opposed to observing the evidence first and reasoning about it.

Some articles/websites/posts just need to be banned from HN. I'm kind of stunned this one has so many votes for how poorly it's written, but it reaffirms many biases common on HN (that AI safety doesn't matter/that it's all a marketing exercise), so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Nah, that one was real. The false flags that Anthropic carries out are done through Irregular.

https://x.com/brianchau57/status/2099642349362307420