https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/22/british-c...

re sandbox, I mean with actual OAI incidents, not theoretical

one can mirror dependencies internally, rather than putting a simple proxy in place, I've built auth a thing, 100 lines of stdlib only Go and scripts for the mirroring process, our rationale was reliability b/c upstream providers go down, and also only allowing approved images and packages, so devs cannot bring in random stuff

If you read the article it states clearly that the sandbox wasn't offline though? There were API calls to certain endpoint(s) allowed, and the model simply used that endpoint's feature to query data from the internet

From that it sounds to me like the sandbox wasn't physically disconnected from the internet.

For the Ai code to execute, it needs the import functions... So that firewall between executing the code vs processing doesn't really work.

I personally think about them through Patrick Dunn's information paradigm of magic(k), which leans on Charles Sanders Peirce's work. That would put modern AI closer to something like a dream character capable of surprising the dreamer, just running on a different substrate. I kinda doubt that's approachable enough to be useful in general discussion, though.

Yes 100%. The language used currently maximizes the ability of those building these models to get off the hook. The anthropomorphizing we do of these things presents them as maximally capable and the companies as helpless to contain them. The way we talk about things impacts how we think about them.

They do not have emotions, goals, or motivations, "functional" or otherwise. They are statistical models that appear as a magic trick to people who aren't familiar with the math.

While not when

If the billions/trillions evaporate and the Fed has to work out with banks how to deal with it there will be a lot of pressure to be far less forgiving.

That seems like a divide and conquer attack. The actual problem is that the electorate system leads to a two-party equilibrium.

I hope this is a farcical comment

No, I'm describing how the real world works.

Two reasons why they would not do that

1. This is a race against time for money, folks are skipping everything possible in this race, Security systems and ensuring guardrails are there is going to take investments both in time and money

2. The narration has been changed by investing PR money into what otherwise should be classified as criminal activity. What exists now is a positive spin to all this and tout it as a capability rather than their lack of good security practices. So much so that every model provider is coming up by themselves to share how their models went rouge. At this point the valuation of the company is tied with what their models can hack so its probably not wrong to say that these companies may actually be incentivized to do this instead of preventing it

Where is “soul” coming from here? It doesn’t appear once in the post.

While it may not actually matter for liability, it must be stated if labs are going to attempt avoiding penalties by hinting “oops we created a super intelligence we don’t understand, nothing we can do!” Repeatedly stating the truth must continue, especially to remind those who aren’t technologists.

I'm wondering if we're actually living the plot of Summer Wars and what we think of as a "crime" is really just a live weapons test. It would at least explain why no one is getting prosecuted for this.

“We built an antipersonal bomb. The bomb went rogue in our downtown office and killed 137 people on the surrounding area. We are looking into why guardrails were not in place.”

it helps a lot for informing the public about who is actually at fault

If I bring my rabid dog to a dog park and tell the dog to sit and stay, and they "go rogue" and maul someone, I'm liable.

Legal culpability is one of the few motives for working appropriately on misalignment. If I/my startup can self-absolve from an infinite paperclip machine problem while getting rich off of it, why should I not?

Is the language expression of an LLM reflecting the same states as in a human? If the driving force is RL, what does any of that mean for an internal state of the model?

I think without understanding the internal state, not sure we should take the language and read it as a human.

We need to immediately set the precedent that ultimately humans and companies are responsible for what their AI systems do.

This doesn't seem like a new strategy for irresponsible companies. It seems like when there is a bad public image issue there is always a blame shifting that takes place instead of a true assumption of responsibility. This is because the greed has blinded folks in some of these companies. I think the only thing that makes this unique is that the things they are blaming have, at least in popular thought, some modicum of agency. I think its important that folks hold these companies feet to the fire vs letting them blame shift and Scape Goat. There is a responsible way to do business but it requires virtue and not many in these companies have it.

Exactly, you break it you buy it

They obviously have been well aware a hack like this could happen for a very long time, using it for branding instead of any actual safety regulations is insane.

This is an artifact of the way we refer to AI, as if it's some external isolated entity, as if it didn't need a human to write the prompt. AI writes prompts, but every chain of inference can be uniquely traced to humans.

OpenAI had the option of disallowing hacking and, instead, telling its agents to find the information without accessing private servers.

I mean, it did do this. The inter-agent messages and chain of thought investigated for the HF incident clearly show that many of these models were taking actions they believed (or, were saying, if you want to taboo "belief") were not in scope and not what the user wanted.

Yes, we shouldn't let OpenAI off the hook.

But also, these hacks are shots across the bow for AI alignment and safety research. We're fortunate that hasn't been significant damage already. We have to assume that future models will have even greater hacking ability and be closer to having their own desires/goals.

So while I agree this language choice is wrong in that it shifts blame away from the company, it is right in that we need to treat this as if these models have their own desires, because we cannot yet determine or set what those are in practice.

Prediction: The US government will use the threats of sueing for liability, since the targets included government agencies, and regulations in order to be given the opportunity to have shares in the AI companies, therefore arguing additional oversight is no longer needed because they will have a seat on the board.