Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dylan16807 | Hacker News Reader

I could believe it could be a dangerous model, I guess.

I don't believe they really care about danger, or that they'd actually fully withhold release on anything significant.

And when I say "significant", is 6.1 Astra even meaningfully different from 6 Astra in capability? That release was less than a month ago.

View on HN

You can't believe a company that's investigating over 10k security incidents in which subagents that they developed and are hosting appear to be indiscriminately hacking into whatever they think will give them some data that improves the prompt response might not want to release that to the public and have subagents hack into stuff for profit?

I don't get how this being an entirely legitimate issue is even hard to grasp.

The number of releases they've gone ahead with so far act as proof that they don't care all that much.

They care about this one because they can't control the agents even in the sandbox.

Letting people call those agents would expose them to a great deal of liability that just wasn't there in older models.

> a company that's investigating over 10k security incidents in which subagents that they developed and are hosting appear to be indiscriminately hacking

Glad you agree that OpenAI is responsible for this activity. Shouldn't we be charging the entire board of the company with, for example, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

If this activity is so dangerous, and they developed the tools and continue to allow them to be used, it seems to trivially follow that they're knowingly violating federal law.

I'm sorry do I look like I work for the US government?

Call your guy

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you are directly responsible for charging them, but more that maybe we as a community should be (way) more concerned about the apparent clear violations of the law here as opposed to a hand-wavy concern about "superintelligence."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com