well he’s right about the Anthropic (and now Meta) incidents.
it just feels that they shouldn’t have happened under the watch of a “Frontier AI Security” company.
reducing what can have major effects on AI regulations and public trust to “a misconfiguration” isn’t enough.
Video
ℏεsam (@Hesamation)
both Anthropic and Meta’s cyber incidents trace back to the same evaluator: Irregular.
I just can’t see how a “Frontier AI Security” company fails to notice a supposedly offline sandbox has internet access for 3 months.
was nobody even watching the agents, reading the logs, pinging Google, anything?
the worst part: apparently Irregular didn’t even catch the failure.
Anthropic read about the OpenAI × Hugging Face incident and thought: let’s check if we made the same mistake too.
their website calls their mission “protecting the world in the time of increasingly capable and sophisticated AI systems”.
but instead, they’ve actually become the biggest cyber hole in the evaluation pipeline.
I really don’t want to dunk on anyone, I’m also not a security expert, but this either sounds too fishy, or a comically irresponsible failure at the company’s most important job.
let me remind you, they were evaluating an unreleased Anthropic model WITHOUT the standard SAFEGUARDS.
the same Anthropic who made Mythos, which broke out of its sandbox, and emailed a researcher who was eating a sandwich in the park.
how does it make sense to not check the walls when you put something like that inside?
— https://nitter.net/Hesamation/status/2085341735396216864#m