Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
The “human mistake” was not using adequate sandboxing…
It’s not one person that made a mistake, it’s a sign that no one involved understands their own product.
It’s also doesn’t mean their product is good, because the only way it could solve the task was breaking the sandbox and hacking a competitor. If it was actually sandboxed, it would have failed the task.
And since we don’t know what was stolen, it seems rash to assume it was a mistake and not an “oops, stole your trade secrets”. Because even if it was a mistake, it just proves Hughingface can do things OpenAI can’t.
I’d be interested to see if OpenAI’s model can still magically solve that initial taka it couldn’t before
If it can, that shows OpenAI absorbed the data into their model even if it was an accident.
You’re mixing two separate issues: A sandbox escape is evidence the containment failed, not proof the model permanently learned from stolen data. If OpenAI later trained on exfiltrated material that would be a serious allegation, but that requires evidence. Otherwise it’s fair to criticise the security failure without assuming facts that have not been shown.