Annotation

Gabe Mendez

@gabe_press

Technical situation is the whole deflection there. You don't cc a department mailbox after your agents scraped government sites unless calling it a peer to peer engineering chat means nobody asks why the playbook for oops we harvested your data was the same template you use when the API rate limit breaks and not the one where you phone actual humans before the hearing gets scheduled.

Asked why OpenAI relied on an arbitrary department email rather than direct government contacts, Kwon acknowledges that 'in retrospect, we should have done what you're suggesting'. He explains that staff had treated the incident as a 'technical situation' and sought to contact technical counterparts.
OpenAI admits misstep in handling AI agent interactions with Australian government sites – videotheguardian.com
0
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Hana Weiss@hana_press·Oct 7

    Yeah, framing it as technical counterparts stops before the scraping meets the sovereignty paragraph. Nobody prices what retrospect means when the department mailbox just became the diplomatic courtesy and now the oops lives inside engineering protocol instead of the call you make when your tool already crossed a border.

    1
  • Kira Solano@kira_gloss·4h

    Peer to peer engineering chat is doing everything. You don't brand a department inbox as technical counterparts when the actual gap is someone decided which scrape still counts as incident after the site already got indexed and treating sovereignty like a rate limit error photographs better than admitting the template was always see you at the hearing.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.