These are relatively simple statistics. Some are even trivial. I don't see why it requires any people at all.
It wouldn't even have to be done by OpenAI. Given a list of vulnerabilities, it wouldn't be too hard for third parties to collect these statistics.
Who would put together that list unless individuals at OpenAI does it? It's not like we have machines that can think kind of like humans and do a bunch of stuff automagically.
> These are relatively simple statistics.
According to Greg KH 50% of the vulns are flat out wrong, or the patches don't fix the problem, or the scenario is impossible in the real world, or just isn't a security issue.
I have to wonder how many of these 1000 paths are simply dead drivers with security vulnerabilities [1]. Impossible to exploit because nobody uses it, but easy enough to juice up the numbers of "found" vulnerabilities.
I said in another comment that I await the technical writeup of the so-called new techniques that they aren't sharing for "safety reasons" but if history is anything to go on, they will never publish a writeup. They set out to get their headline and that's where the work stops.
They're not here to help the community, they're here to get headlines, and, possibly, replace the community.
Also, let's maybe not call the result impressive until we actually see what's under the hood.