BREAKING: OpenAI was warned, months before the Hugging Face incident
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 1 was checked against evidence. 7 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Causal claim
“Greedy company makes bad choice that causes chaos; government does nothing to stop them.”
Our reading: OpenAI, which Marcus calls a greedy company, made a bad choice that caused chaos, and the government did nothing to stop it.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet does not provide sufficiently comprehensive government records to establish whether relevant preventive action occurred before the attacks.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Management should be replaced, and if the board does nothing (which I assume it will not), it should be held liable for allowing this mess to proceed.”
Our reading: OpenAI's management should be replaced, and if the board does nothing it should be held liable for allowing the security failures.
No horizon
Qualifier: board liability if the board does nothing
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Most importantly, it’s abundantly clear that we simply cannot trust OpenAI.”
Our reading: It is abundantly clear that we simply cannot trust OpenAI.
No horizon
Qualifier: abundantly clear
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Altman probably never told him how much warning he got, or how bad things were. Huang should not have trusted him.”
Our reading: Altman probably never told Jensen Huang how much warning Altman himself got or how bad things were, and Huang should not have trusted Altman.
No horizon
Qualifier: probably
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Media should be asking Huang some very hard questions about why he stood up for these companies and what he knew and when — and why we should trust his judgment going forward.”
Our reading: The media should press Jensen Huang on why he defended AI companies, what he knew, and why his judgment should be trusted.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“His proposal to leave things to the companies clearly makes little sense in light of reality.”
Our reading: Jensen Huang's proposal to leave AI safety to the companies makes little sense given the evidence.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“We have to stop pretending that the folks at OpenAI are good stewards of the technology they are developing.”
Our reading: We have to stop pretending that the folks at OpenAI are good stewards of the technology they are developing, because they plainly are not.
No horizon
Scope: the folks at OpenAI
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“The consequences of letting them run free of serious regulation could be literally disastrous.”
Our reading: Leaving OpenAI free of serious regulation could have disastrous consequences.
No horizon
Only if: if OpenAI is left free of serious regulation
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: If OpenAI is sued for harms caused by its agents, the NYT report on ignored warnings will be key evidence and punitive damages will be high.