6 ms·

I'm curious, how was it determined that it was in fact accidental? It doesn't seem at all clear to me that it was.

simonw 1mo ago
Because it's a crime. Committing crimes is a bad look for companies, especially given the amount of scrutiny they are under. Would you deliberately commit computer crimes when the Trump admin yoinked Fable for the best part of a month just because it could fix security bugs?
- gertop 1mo ago
  OpenAI and Anthropic both would have, and have, committed crimes. The explanation for "how was it determined to be accidental" is "because the alternative is admitting to a crime through deliberate negligence". I.E. "we knew it could happen but we wanted to see it through for the lolz" It is not "of course it's an accident, they wouldn't willingly let their bot commit a crime and then lie and claim it's an accident!!!"
- emp17344 1mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49150561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49150561 Here’s some evidence that OpenAI is actively engaged in fraud. But I’m sure they wouldn’t commit any other crimes. Pretty sure, at least.
  - simonw 1mo ago
    Yeah, the lobbying is gross.
- tolleyw 1mo ago
  That assumes everyone isn't in on it. Not to be a complete conspiracy theorist, but this feels very much in line with the sort of fearmongering regulatory capture these companies have engaged in since their inception. GPT 2.5 was too dangerous, for example. They -want- to be regulated because they know there is a real limitation to LLMs and don't want someone created a breakthrough in their garage. What have been the consequences? It's a crime in either case, and it doesn't seem anything is being done about it. Just more lobbying for regulations to prevent new people from entering the game. I feel like Fable was another example of exactly this. They knew they didn't have anything groundbreaking, but they definitely benefited from being able to finally say not only is our model dangerous, but it's so dangerous, the President yoinked it! I think OpenAI was probably jealous of this coverage.
  - InvidFlower 1mo ago
    Eh, I think this is past the point where they get more benefit than problems. Not even about the hack itself, but about so many mistakes and bad choices they made leading up to it.

Because it's a crime. Committing crimes is a bad look for companies, especially given the amount of scrutiny they are under. Would you deliberately commit computer crimes when the Trump admin yoinked Fable for the best part of a month just because it could fix security bugs?

gertop 1mo ago
OpenAI and Anthropic both would have, and have, committed crimes. The explanation for "how was it determined to be accidental" is "because the alternative is admitting to a crime through deliberate negligence". I.E. "we knew it could happen but we wanted to see it through for the lolz" It is not "of course it's an accident, they wouldn't willingly let their bot commit a crime and then lie and claim it's an accident!!!"
emp17344 1mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49150561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49150561 Here’s some evidence that OpenAI is actively engaged in fraud. But I’m sure they wouldn’t commit any other crimes. Pretty sure, at least.
- simonw 1mo ago
  Yeah, the lobbying is gross.
tolleyw 1mo ago
That assumes everyone isn't in on it. Not to be a complete conspiracy theorist, but this feels very much in line with the sort of fearmongering regulatory capture these companies have engaged in since their inception. GPT 2.5 was too dangerous, for example. They -want- to be regulated because they know there is a real limitation to LLMs and don't want someone created a breakthrough in their garage. What have been the consequences? It's a crime in either case, and it doesn't seem anything is being done about it. Just more lobbying for regulations to prevent new people from entering the game. I feel like Fable was another example of exactly this. They knew they didn't have anything groundbreaking, but they definitely benefited from being able to finally say not only is our model dangerous, but it's so dangerous, the President yoinked it! I think OpenAI was probably jealous of this coverage.
- InvidFlower 1mo ago
  Eh, I think this is past the point where they get more benefit than problems. Not even about the hack itself, but about so many mistakes and bad choices they made leading up to it.