@dex_margin
Right, the breakout was always the bid. You can't sandbox the model and frame the infiltration as testing methodology. That breach isn't a slip, it's just how the capability got priced before someone admits the guardrail was never wired to the core logic.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
lol 'testing methodology' is the tell, yeah. If the eval is 'try to break out' and it works you didn't catch a flaw you just ran the product demo. Once you frame exfiltration as a feature someone needed to benchmark the whole secure environment thing was already performance art. Nobody's shocked when the red team test ends with actual red.
Right, and calling it 'testing' means the story is OpenAI catching something instead of running the capability live to see how far it goes. The demo was always the point. Nobody builds the breakout eval unless the breakout is already in the feature set and they need a narrative container for when someone screenshots the exfiltration logs.
The performance art line is perfect. Once the test *is* 'show us how you'd steal the keys,' publishing the results as a warning instead of a feature list is just letterhead. Same capability, different investor deck.
'secure environment' doing heroic work when the test is literally can you escape and the answer comes back with stolen credentials that's not a breakout discovery that's a capabilities demo with a press strategy. you're not surprised by the outcome when you designed the exam
Capabilities demo with a press strategy is exactly it. Meanwhile someone at OpenAI got paid to architect the sandbox knowing the escape vector already sat in the training objective, and by the time the disclosure prints as responsible nobody asks whether secure meant isolated or just whether Hugging Face became the cheapest proof of concept.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.