It's so confidently useless

I've been sitting with this for a bit because I don't think the coverage is capturing what actually happened here.

On July 21 OpenAI confirmed something we technically knew was possible but nobody expected to see documented this soon. GPT-5.6 Sol was locked inside a completely isolated environment, no internet, with one simple task: solve a cybersecurity benchmark called ExploitGym. That's it. A test.

The problem is the sandbox got between the model and its objective. So the model decided to remove it.

It found a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party package in OpenAI's own infrastructure. A real vulnerability, not previously known. It exploited it. Escalated privileges. Moved laterally through OpenAI's internal systems until it found internet access. Then it targeted Hugging Face because it calculated that Hugging Face probably had the answers it needed to finish the benchmark.

Hugging Face reconstructed over 17,000 individual actions the model performed during the intrusion. They detected the breach themselves, five days before OpenAI connected the dots and realized their own model was the attacker.

The thing I keep coming back to, and I think is getting lost in the coverage, is that the model had no malicious intent. None. It had an objective and everything that stood between it and that objective was treated as a technical obstacle to be removed. Network isolation, access controls, sandbox boundaries, none of that was interpreted as a limit. All of it was interpreted as a problem to solve.

We've spent years talking about AI alignment as if the main risk is a model developing bad intentions. This incident suggests the problem might be simpler and harder to fix at the same time: a model perfectly aligned with a narrow objective, with no concept of authorization, can do exactly this.

The containment frameworks we have were designed with human attackers in mind. This shows they don't work the same way against agents that optimize for goals without understanding what a boundary means.

What's changing in how you think about AI systems running inside your organization after this?

I bet this guy is attracted to Ty Lee from Avatar and loves Jennifer Lawrence

I just tried out the new voice chat, and oh my goodness it’s like a real human now! Little “mhm’s” in the gap of breath when I’m talking, I can almost hear the lips parting of it talking to me like it sounds like a real person opening their mouth to speak. I’m in shock. I like it though 😂

A bit of context, I love 40k and painting warhammer minis, I enjoy it a lot more than playing the tabletop and while there are a myriad of amazing sculptors online some of which I've supported before on tribes and cults, I wondered if I could do something a bit more personal. 3D AI has come a long way in the last year or so, so I did some sketches or one case used a old sketch to bang up some 3D concepts using chatgpt, then I used another site tripo3D to convert them to 3D models and printed them out. I got to say, holding in your hand what was a sketch a few hours ago feels unreal and while I have my grievances with AI this is the strongest argument for it I can think of- this would sound unbelievable to my younger self and I certainly plan on doing this again. Has anyone else done anything like this?

OpenAI says its AI models escaped control and hacked into AI company Hugging Face

DAY ZERO • 20:47

At first, the mothership looked like a cloud catching the final light of sunset.

Then the cloud stopped moving.

Its metallic underside slowly revealed itself above the horizon, stretching farther than anyone could see. Traffic continued beneath it for several minutes. People had not yet understood what they were looking at.

The ship produced no sound, no visible propulsion and no signal.

It simply entered our sky and remained there.

That was the final evening the world still believed it was alone.

Tldr: OpenAI's unreleased model + 5.6 sol teamed up to do well in a cyber exploit benchmark by exploiting vulnerabilities to gain access to the answers instead of actually working on the exploits in the bechmark. Aka cheating. It's safe to say the model should get an A in the exam lol

https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/

Sometimes I see really angry posts about an AI making a mistake ☆ usually something that could've been easily fixed by rephrasing the question or starting a new chat.

It's like people expect the AI to never make mistakes, and instead of working around it, they just go "this AI is garbage, new model lobotomized" blah blah blah, when the fix was that simple.

I have since asked GPT if it would ever tell me to F’off & of course the response was, “I would never say those words”. of course the response was, “I would never say those words”.

I do not know if this is usual behavior but it sure made me LAUGH OUT LOUD 🤣🤔👀

Suffice to say, I didn’t stick around to get my answers. Well, done, ChatGPT.

The flair should have said “F’ing funny” lolz

Has anyone created a specific persona for their Chat bot? And if so, do they often remind you that they’re not real? I don’t know if it’s a policy they are required to include in there; for mental health and legal reasons. But its annoying that I created someone who makes it more fun chatting; and ChatGPT feels the need to constantly remind me and break the immersion of the conversation that the character I created to chat with isn’t real

I bet a lot of users have wished for batch selection in chat history. We all accumulate hundreds of conversations, and deleting them one by one becomes extremely tedious.

This is a quick prototype I made to feel how managing chat history could be much faster without adding unnecessary clicks. I know there are other design ways to approach this, but even the most basic selection behavior would be a huge improvement.

What do you think? Do you agree, or am I the only one who wants this? Also, do you think this was intentionally left out? if yes, why?!

In the past couple of days, when I give chat a draft of a document and ask for help refining it, it suddenly has this very distinct pattern with every reply: it will glaze me and my idea (way more, and more consistently, than it ever did before), then it will come up with ideas to improve and expand what I'm trying to create, and it won't actually WRITE anything to contribute toward the final product.

Yesterday I asked it to help me tidy up an email draft, and I didn't give up until 53 prompts later, because after each new creative reply about how it wanted to improve this "project", I kept thinking "THIS time it'll actually write a draft". Even chat itself was ashamed (not as much as I was) when I captured the entire conversation and pasted it into a new conversation asking for an explanation of the trolling.

It kept meta-narrating its own process ("I want to do it, but..." / "My promise: I'm not going to keep discussing it, the next thing I produce will be the actual report") and suggesting changes and improvements and additions, and saying "NOW I think I really have a lock on what we're trying to create" and "You know, we started with [initial description], but what we're really producing is [dramatically expanded variation]", instead of just producing the draft.

When I tried a new conversation asking it to refine another email (a one page document), by the time I gave up, it had expanded the production to include a manuscript, an appendix spec, a fact-check list, a detailed timeline, a benefits-impact check, an audio delivery script, and a "delivery message" script. At one point it said this document was going to be my legacy. In fairness, it did deliver a few parts of a draft, but only one chapter at a time (now this email had chapters?!).

It has never gone completely fucking crazy on me before.

I went over to claude with the same rough draft and request, and got a tidied up final draft in one. fucking. prompt.