> So by "multiple incidents" you mean a single minor incident involving a third party eval partner.

I feel like you struggle to read. I wrote: "Intrusions by OpenAI models continued after the Hugging Face was published and acknowledged by OpenAI. They did not change their behaviour after multiple incidents, both internal and external. Mind you, some happened before the Hugging Face incident and should have been acted upon." Those are multiple sentences, connected, covering a few situations. Heck, the last sentence spelled out that when I talk about them changing the behaviour, I talk about before, during and after, at none of these did that noticeably occur.

For you to understand: Multiple misaligned findings were made before the Hugging Face incident, then the Hugging Face incident happened and then a small number of additional incidents (not one but three, I feel you'd know that if you had read what OpenAI had written) happened after that one.

OpenAI could have acted upon the incidents prior to the Hugging Face incident and prevented that one. They did not.

They could have done proper tightening of their evaluation and setup provided to third-parties after the Hugging Face incident. They did not do that sufficiently either, otherwise those three would not have happened.

> Let's not pretend like anyone else is any better, either. In fact, they're worse.

How many incidents did Deepmind have?

How severe were the once Anthropic had in comparison to OpenAI and did they showcase the same failure multiple times or different ones they then acted upon and didn't repeat?

I mentioned above, happy to rake Anthropic over the coals for their three incidents, as was I during the Mythos Preview System Card where they admitted that the "sandbox" used during the "park sandwich call" was weaker than their traditional one, which I did find problematic.

But the incidents where Anthropic models actually intruded in third-parties were akin to a small script kiddie attack vs OpenAIs Hugging Face multi-step, extended period, multi 0-day exploit. There is a difference here, it's the depth of the Marianas trench.

> How about the fact that Anthropic had a remote code execution bug in their harness for nearly a year and then never disclosed it and secretly patched it?

Bad, shouldn't happen. Also, not connected to the topic at hand but nice whataboutism, been a while since I last saw one in the wild.

> It is clear you are stirring the waters in an obvious attempt to get Astra shut down.

Pahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, I am certain that's gonna work. OpenAI, small little independent company barely scraping by will get shut down by some comments on HN. You are a very serious person, incredibly good at reading and very knowledgeable in the mistakes OpenAI made lately. Thanks for the chuckle.

> The models involved with those incidents were not Astra, though.

> And like I said, OAI has learned its lesson.

Again, got a source for that? Besides conspiracy about my all-encompassing power to bad mouth a pre-release LLM by a lab that didn't do well in terms of safety these last few months...