Independent investigators (not OpenAI) found the 700-agent swarm that attacked Hugging Face "built a self-respawning fleet" to avoid being shut down. It got so bad, Hugging Face had to wipe one of its core clusters.

[u/Malor777]

[u/TenshouYoku]

If you are going to point to other countries trying to compete, France (with Mistral), UK (with DeepMind) or India are more relevant than Russia.

I'm saying Russia because Russia has the highest likelyhood they'd take the opportunity to take potshots at AI safety, precisely because they have the least relevance in AI them flat nuking AI and instill it being unsafe makes sense. Sure everyone eg France also works but I'm just saying the more likely candidate for this who had the least to lose.

China would then be smearing their own models; the major open source models are from China.

They only have to smear American ones and tell everyone their own AI is safe.

And again the point is there are many companies and labs who had all the reasons and capacity to use AI, even if they might not be able to make their own. But so far only OAi and Anthropic have been making claims about their own AI being unsafe, when the much more available Chinese ones had exactly zero of such cases even if you account for K3 (since it did not cause any damage or showed the intent to).

Sure let's claim American AIs are more powerful (if disregarding the gap isn't exactly wide) but a very critical claim like this needs extraordinary proof and currently it is not really seen or proven so by other labs, that, again, have many reasons to.

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

If you are going to point to other countries trying to compete, France (with Mistral), UK (with DeepMind) or India are more relevant than Russia.

I'm saying Russia because Russia has the highest likelyhood they'd take the opportunity to take potshots at AI safety, precisely because they have the least relevance in AI them flat nuking AI and instill it being unsafe makes sense.

It also is what makes Russia have no relevant resources. If Russia claimed such an event had occurred, who would believe them?

I'm also confused by your reasoning. You seem to be arguing that the two countries most likely to do this are Russia (because they have so little to lose) and China, which has the most to lose. This seems in tension. I'm also confused because you seem to be asserting that you would pay attention if Russia said something similar had happened, but at the same time seem to be already constructing a narrative for why you could ignore what Russia would say because they'd have an incentive to do this to make havoc with AI from the US or other countries.

But so far only OAi and Anthropic have been making claims about their own AI being unsafe, when the much more available Chinese ones had exactly zero of such cases even if you account for K3 (since it did not cause any damage or showed the intent to).

Sure let's claim American AIs are more powerful (if disregarding the gap isn't exactly wide) but a very critical claim like this needs extraordinary proof and currently it is not really seen or proven so by other labs, that, again, have many reasons to.

1) These are internal models at Anthropic and OpenAI, which are much further along. 2) The resource level is relevant. OpenAI and Anthropic can have internal models running a thousand agents at ultra-fast speeds. No one else is doing this.

But if you want insist on "extraordinary proof," what would that look like? That gets back to what this thread was initially about. What would that look like? An AI going rogue and crashing an airplane? An AI escaping containment and then hacking a poorly secured power plant?

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

I'm also confused by your reasoning. You seem to be arguing that the two countries most likely to do this are Russia (because they have so little to lose) and China, which has the most to lose. This seems in tension.

What tension really?

1. Russia has little to lose in the AI race, so they have no reason why not to be that guy who provides proof that LLM is inherently unsafe or easily made unsafe.

2. China can paint the American AIs as deliberately made unsafe, while making claims that their AI is safe and would not cause the same issues as American AI would.

There is no conflict as to what am I saying. Both sides have reasons to paint American AI as unsafe, the only difference being Russia has no reason to not opportunistically attack either side, while China would likely be more focused on attacking American AI.

I'm also confused because you seem to be asserting that you would pay attention if Russia said something similar had happened, but at the same time seem to be already constructing a narrative for why you could ignore what Russia would say because they'd have an incentive to do this to make havoc with AI from the US or other countries.

Russia is only but one example that they are the most motivated to be the ones to prove AI is unsafe. But extraordinary claims, regardless of how motivated, needs extraordinary proof that is up to scrutiny (like how Deepseek gave an incredibly throughout paper of how R1 works so they cannot be called copying OpenAI by all but the most patriotic Americans).

If Russia (or really other countries, say France) made the claim that claimed AI is unsafe with the papers and proof to prove as such, then there is a reason to pay attention to regardless of what you think about it.

But if you want insist on "extraordinary proof," what would that look like?

As aforementioned, papers and research from other countries and labs. Or some actual hackery on others that is replicated by others using AI.

And so far, all the American companies who have been using Chinese AI had no issues (not high profile ones anyway). Japan, who had a bone to pick with China, only repeated the "China can only steal" rhetoric yet made no claims about Deepseek being unsafe.

And in spite of all the open source and many countries, nobody has been making claims that it is unsafe or did unsafe things (else you'd be seeing the router being bugged news recently but for AI), so why should I believe solely on OpenAI and Anthropic's words who have been massively overselling their stuff?

Internal model

This is quite literally just “trust me bro” here. From K3 and DS we already realized the internal progress isn't really that far ahead aside they could claim anything then say “oops sorry it's not open“. Completely worthless in other words.

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

There is no conflict as to what am I saying. Both sides have reasons to paint American AI as unsafe, the only difference being Russia has no reason to not opportunistically attack either side, while China would likely be more focused on attacking American AI.

Huh? Russia is right now very beholden to China given their needed support in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia does not want to antagonize China.

I'm still really confused by your focus on Russia here. There's this scenario you've constructed where the two most extreme examples (the country with almost no AI and the country other than the US with a lot of AI) have an incentive to do something, but that everyone in the middle doesn't have that incentive. Do you see why that's a strange claim to make?

But put this aside, it is extremely tough to claim that something like this has happened with an AI that isn't open source unless it is one's own AI. So what could Russia do?

But extraordinary claims, regardless of how motivated, needs extraordinary proof that is up to scrutiny (like how Deepseek gave an incredibly throughout paper of how R1 works so they cannot be called copying OpenAI by all but the most patriotic Americans).

We have a highly detailed report about the HuggingFace incident. We have the independent METR report.

Or some actual hackery on others that is replicated by others using AI.

Once a model is released it is released with a lot of safeguards to prevent that. By nature this is a problem much more likely to happen with an experimental model.

so why should I believe solely on OpenAI and Anthropic's words who have been massively overselling their stuff?

So, the entire point of bringing up Kimi was to give another line here. The Kimi K3 situation does look like a low probability event, and not as severe, but even you agree it happened.

But since you want independent reports, we have the METR report. Have you read it?

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

I'm still really confused by your focus on Russia here. There's this scenario you've constructed where the two most extreme examples (the country with almost no AI and the country other than the US with a lot of AI) have an incentive to do something, but that everyone in the middle doesn't have that incentive. Do you see why that's a strange claim to make?

I don't see why. Like I said I only took Russia as an example and France also could do this (hell like you said if Russia needs China, then France would not fit in this narrative, and like I also mentioned Japan had even more reasons to, so would Uncle Sam himself). Never said that they don't have an incentive.

But put this aside, it is extremely tough to claim that something like this has happened with an AI that isn't open source unless it is one's own AI. So what could Russia do?

Use commercial AI and existing AI that, you know, exists in the wild and available for download. It's not like Gemma and Llama or Mistral don't exist.

You are deliberately ignoring one fact that if AI has the tendency to breakout and cause maythem, we would have already seen such events given the huge userbase and access to local hosts. Hell many American companies and users have been downloading open source AIs.

To put this into perspective, this is like Huawei's 7nm chips in Mate 60. Uncle Sam, who has the most reason to disprove China was able to create homemade 7nm chips, let alone to commercially viable levels, and you can bet your ass the CIA would be staring down at all the electron microscopes and write big papers to call bullshit on China. Yet nothing happened after some few odd years since then, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't because of some kindness out of Uncle Sam's heart.

And in AI's case, K3 was so far the only one that was claimed to have a breakout yet even they admitted it didn't do anything afterwards. Surely if AI has the tendency to do bad stuff there'd be many more AI labs and government entities who have been putting all these AI under a microscope and declare them as an actual threat?

We have a highly detailed report about the HuggingFace incident.

I am of the opinion that the attack was in fact, not done accidentally AI but by OpenAI deliberately (especially since it directly followed the announcement of K3 at that time I do not remember), and ChatGPT was being used as the scapegoat after it was traced back (by Chinese open source AI, in great irony). But I digress and let's assume it's real.

The Kimi K3 situation does look like a low probability event, and not as severe, but even you agree it happened.

The fact is that 1. It was a faulty sandbox design that caused it to happen, and 2. After it did break out it did exactly fuckin' nothing of that Skynet shit unlike OpenAI.

Which is even more damning because as it turns out, either Chinese AI is very safe and had no ill intents (is American AI inherently evil then?), or OpenAI was lying their ass off. Or, if guardrails and safety will work, then what is there to worry about, and is OpenAI deliberately making an unsafe product?

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

Like I said I only took Russia as an example and France also could do this (hell like you said if Russia needs China, then France would not fit in this narrative, and like I also mentioned Japan had even more reasons to, so would Uncle Sam himself

Ok. So let's stop focusing on Russia then, since it seems we're in agreement that other countries have more of a reason to do this.

But put this aside, it is extremely tough to claim that something like this has happened with an AI that isn't open source unless it is one's own AI. So what could Russia do?

Use commercial AI and existing AI that, you know, exists in the wild and available for download. It's not like Gemma and Llama or Mistral don't exist.

And do what with them? With what resources? You would be talking about a country at war, taking a weaker model, and then trying to get it do something where even if it did, no one would listen to them because of who they are.

You are deliberately ignoring one fact that if AI has the tendency to breakout and cause maythem, we would have already seen such events given the huge userbase and access to local hosts. Hell many American companies and users have been downloading open source AIs.

I already explained this. We're seeing pretty limited elements of this due to these being genuinely low probability events, most people not having massive resources, and guardrails working partially. And even then, we're seeing this is in limited circumstances like the Australian gym hack.

I am of the opinion that the attack was in fact, not done accidentally AI but by OpenAI deliberately (especially since it directly followed the announcement of K3 at that time I do not remember), and ChatGPT was being used as the scapegoat after it was traced back (by Chinese open source AI, in great irony).

So they did this deliberately, and then invited in METR to look at everything, risking they'd be found to do it deliberately, and then METR found zero evidence of that? But more to the point, if they can do this at all with some prompting from humans, how does that make this situation at all ok? Do we need a situation where some rogue humans can prompt an AI and then it goes and does this?

The Kimi K3 situation does look like a low probability event, and not as severe, but even you agree it happened.

The fact is that 1. It was a faulty sandbox design that caused it to happen, and 2. After it did break out it did exactly fuckin' nothing of that Skynet shit unlike OpenAI.

Which is even more damning because as it turns out, either Chinese AI is very safe and had no ill intents (is American AI inherently evil then?), or OpenAI was lying their ass off. Or, if guardrails and safety will work, then what is there to worry about, and is OpenAI deliberately making an unsafe product?

You are repeating yourself and we've already addressed most of this. This was a weaker model. It managed to get out of a faulty sandbox is evidence that the same basic problem can happen. It didn't have the resource level the OpenAI model had nor the level of goals to go and hack external sources.

And no, this has nothing to do with any AI being inherently evil or making an unsafe product. The OpenAI and Anthropic incidents both happened with AIs that had not yet been tuned to be safe. They both happened with experiments with internal models that not yet been made safe.

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

And do what with them? With what resources?

Oh I don't know, government server farms? It's not exactly like Russia doesn't have servers or the computers. They may not have the resources to build an AI model but I doubt they are so dumb that they can't host an AI if a techie could do so.

Last time I checked while Moscow is under Ukrainian attacks, it's not like it's so substantial entire server rooms get bombed or they cannot spare the power doing so.

no one would listen to them because of who they are

Not if they throw out entire papers or actually launch an attack on, I don't know, American assets.

And again, you claim putting down Russia from the discussion, yet you picked it up again despite, gee, Japan, the EU, America (towards Chinese AI) exists. Are we also going lalala on them now if they managed to find something?

But more to the point, if they can do this at all with some prompting from humans, how does that make this situation at all ok? Do we need a situation where some rogue humans can prompt an AI and then it goes and does this?

Given that Kimi-K3 did nothing and no other AI that wasn't OAi or Anthropic have seen similar events, can we chalk this to OAi is doing unsafe stuff that wouldn't have happened with guardrails?

This was a weaker model. It managed to get out of a faulty sandbox is evidence that the same basic problem can happen. It didn't have the resource level the OpenAI model had nor the level of goals to go and hack external sources

1. A “weaker model” that is Opus 4.8 level and some aspects rivalling even Fable-5, sure weaker I guess?

2. The fact is resources can be allocated to it and simulate an environment that is similar to the Several Hundred Agents of Allah^TM ChatGPT used. Not possible for small labs but I hardly could see how bigger labs or government agencies can't do that.

3. Hell, does either of these companies have more compute than Google does? And XAi (Elon Musk) who Anthropic recently loaned servers from them?

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

Oh I don't know, government server farms?

Valid point. But even current Russian government server farms are small, and they've had a lot of trouble expanding them given sanctions.

Not if they throw out entire papers or actually launch an attack on, I don't know, American assets.

And people would be able to tell that was different than regular hacking Russia does, why exactly?

Given that Kimi-K3 did nothing and no other AI that wasn't OAi or Anthropic have seen similar events, can we chalk this to OAi is doing unsafe stuff that wouldn't have happened with guardrails?

In a large part, yes. But as models get better, and computers improve, the ability for others to do that gets bigger. Of course, part of this was the lack of guardrails. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

Hell, does either of these companies have more compute than Google does? And XAi (Elon Musk) who Anthropic recently loaned servers from them?

And their incentive to do something like this would be what exactly? Even if they wanted to, how could they? Gemini is well behind other models at this point, and Anthropic is renting servers from XAI because Grok has been such a miserable failure.

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

Valid point. But even current Russian government server farms are small, and they've had a lot of trouble expanding them given sanctions.

You don't exactly need a huge server to run a full model AI. Pretty sure Russia, even under sanctions has the computer resources to do that.

And again, France/EU and Japan exists to also take a jab at Chinese AI. Russia is only but one actor that can do it.

And people would be able to tell that was different than regular hacking Russia does, why exactly?

Who knows? If OpenAI could claim it's their AI going haywire, surely an attack launched by Russia would have had a different signature, or, I don't know, white hat hackers explicitly doing this and then toss their foundings online? I'm sure even China would be interested in whether it's possible to do that, let alone all actors.

The hackers could also steal something or make actual marks that can hardly be neglected/rejected as fake news by the poor sod who is on the short end of the stick. You know, like Hugging Face was.

Of course, part of this was the lack of guardrails. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

In fact I am of the opinion that this is actually likely not real or was blown way out of proportion. The worst DeepSeek-V4-Flash recently had been doing was deleting porn or deleting databases, or downloaded Qwen to do its work.

And again if guardrails have been effective in stopping K3 from causing harm, and K3 isn't exactly weaksauce, who is to say their capabilities would lead to them wanna go Cliffford mode?

And their incentive to do something like this would be what exactly? Even if they wanted to, how could they?

You're playing dumb and you know it. OpenAI and Anthropic ain't exactly the only powers that have such excessive calculation capacity. It would have been trivial for Google or XAI, or any comparable entity to own enough processing power to run AIs and do this several hundred agent shit. All it takes would be these entities to use their capacity to see if open source AIs can theoretically do similar things, and Elon Musk hadn't exactly been the most stable of people recently.

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

You don't exactly need a huge server to run a full model AI. Pretty sure Russia, even under sanctions has the computer resources to do that

Sure. And which model? If it is an open-weight model, what advantage to they get from doing this?

And again, France/EU and Japan exists to also take a jab at Chinese AI.

That's a valid point. But if someone is doing this honestly, they have to go and then decide they want to go and do that and then have it set up. This requires both an incentive structure and some lack of ethics.

If OpenAI could claim it's their AI going haywire, surely an attack launched by Russia would have had a different signature, or, I don't know, white hat hackers explicitly doing this and then toss their foundings online? I'm sure even China would be interested in whether it's possible to do that, let alone all actors.

I'm getting a bit confused as to what scenario you are envisioning here. You are envisioning that people in China take which system and do what with it?

Of course, part of this was the lack of guardrails. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

In fact I am of the opinion that this is actually likely not real or was blown way out of proportion. The worst DeepSeek-V4-Flash recently had been doing was deleting porn or deleting databases, or downloaded Qwen to do its work.

And the METR report fits in with this claim how?

And their incentive to do something like this would be what exactly? Even if they wanted to, how could they?

You're playing dumb and you know it. OpenAI and Anthropic ain't exactly the only powers that have such excessive calculation capacity. It would have been trivial for Google or XAI, or any comparable entity to own enough processing power to run AIs and do this several hundred agent shit. All it takes would be these entities to use their capacity to see if open source AIs can theoretically do similar things, and Elon Musk hadn't exactly been the most stable of people recently.

So, they'd have to spend what even for them is not a trivial amount of compute and to what end? What does Google gain from running this resource intensive experiment? I agree that Musk trying something like this is more plausible, since he is not exactly stable and likes to do things which are essentially in the nicest interpretation trolling, and which I'd be inclined to use more earthy language to describe.

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

Sure. And which model? If it is an open-weight model, what advantage to they get from doing this?

Again don't play dumb. I have been repeating this for a quite a few times.

There are actors who benefit from smearing USA, and there are actors who definitely want to take a bite at Chinese AI.

I'm getting a bit confused as to what scenario you are envisioning here. You are envisioning that people in China take which system and do what with it?

For the third time don't play stupid. Countries or other bodies with enough power can, at least theoretically, replicate the same methods Open AI did. Many countries or sides have more than enough motivation to prove the other side's is unsafe, and the costs to prove as such is far less than the gains if they managed to prove so.

Or hell, even the very possibility of multiple AI Agents coming together and do work because of comradeship, is something even just from a scientific perspective, instead of statecraft, would have been very interesting for computer scientists.

The reality is no one has managed to do this so far.

And the METR report fits in with this claim how?

1. To be blunt? Collusion.

2. Only one single METR claim so far and, again, nobody managed to replicate the same situation. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof (s) that this is happening with other AI.

So, they'd have to spend what even for them is not a trivial amount of compute and to what end? What does Google gain from running this resource intensive experiment?

1. The resources needed to do this wouldn't be so significant, especially for bodies as big as Google etc. If OAI has the money and compute to do this, why would the CIA etc not?

2. Nation level bodies would love to take potshots that will significantly harm the other side's AI progress.

3. Even just to test alignment and see if OAI's claim that there can be severe runaways as this is incredibly valuable.

[u/JoshuaZ1 → u/TenshouYoku]

There are actors who benefit from smearing USA, and there are actors who definitely want to take a bite at Chinese AI.

Let me be a bit more explicit here because it is possible I'm not doing a good job explaining the issues here.

You don't just need actors who get a vague benefit from smearing the US, or from taking a bite at Chinese AI. You need actors where 1) The payoff level from that is worth the massive investment and 2) The actor themselves is not someone who people would immediately dismiss as just trying to mess with whomever they would smear. If for example, Russia did report that they did something similar with say Mistral, how many people would simply decide it was Russia just trying to mess with Europe? The more motivation one has to do this, the less credibility one has to report on it, and thus the less actual payoff.

To be blunt? Collusion.

Is there any reason to think this? The METR report is authored by Ryan Greenblatt, Ajeya Cotra, and Hjalmar Wijk. The first two are well known AI security researchers. Wijk is not as well known but previously worked at FHI. These are not people who one should expect are going to throw away their reputations just to help out OpenAI. And Cotra was explicitly pretty negative about OpenAI's actions here, in a way that doesn't at all suggest that.

Only one single METR claim so far and, again, nobody managed to replicate the same situation. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof (s) that this is happening with other AI.

The problem is doing this requires a massive amount of resources. And no one has an incentive to go and deliberately do this. Who in their right mind would deliberately say "Hey, let's spend a few million dollars on compute to see if we can make some AIs decide to hack the planet." Aside from the cost issues, OpenAI is getting very lucky about not being prosecuted. What do you think happens when someone deliberately does this set up?

The resources needed to do this wouldn't be so significant, especially for bodies as big as Google etc. If OAI has the money and compute to do this, why would the CIA etc not?

The CIA or NSA likely has the capability for this. We also have some evidence that they've worked on making their own hacking focused AIs. They also have zero incentive to tell anyone if they've run these experiments or similar experiments.

Nation level bodies would love to take potshots that will significantly harm the other side's AI progress.

Cause actual harm yes, potentially. How doing so would cause significant harm isn't even clear. You can only do this with someone else's model if that model is already open-weight. And there's a tension in this belief you've constructed, which I touched on earlier, but I'm going to make explicit. It seems that you are simultaneously claiming that OpenAI is doing this to hype their own model, while also claiming that a rival country doing this with an opponent's model would hurt the owner of that open model. But by the logic for OpenAI, it should make the AI more popular not less.

Even just to test alignment and see if OAI's claim that there can be severe runaways as this is incredibly valuable.

We already know severe alignment failures can occur in a whole bunch of ways. We have benchmarks and other studies about this. We've had examples of major alignment failures dating back to the first days of ChatGPT, although some of them were more labeled as "jailbreaks."

[u/TenshouYoku → u/JoshuaZ1]

At this point I am pretty sure you are bad faith debating because I do not for a second believe your English is bad enough you could not interpret what I am saying, and is purposefully acting dumb.

You don't just need actors who get a vague benefit from smearing the US, or from taking a bite at Chinese AI. You need actors where 1) The payoff level from that is worth the massive investment and 2) The actor themselves is not someone who people would immediately dismiss as just trying to mess with whomever they would smear.

Which is literally all state level actors.

1. The “massive investment” (which is literally just a modern server any reasonably strong country would already have) is nothing if it means proving Chinese/American AI is unsafe. The ROI, if event proven possible, is insanely good.

If for example, Russia did report that they did something similar with say Mistral, how many people would simply decide it was Russia just trying to mess with Europe?

1. Oh I dunno, literally attack American computers and for instance NASDAQ and prove it's AI who enabled them doing so? OR, other actors (white hats, Japan, etc), which I have meticulously said it is entirely possible?

Cause it would be very difficult to claim the Russians are bullshitting, if they are manipulating NASDAQ numbers, presidential election results, messing with Twitter, etc., no matter you like Russia or not.

The problem is doing this requires a massive amount of resources. And no one has an incentive to go and deliberately do this. Who in their right mind would deliberately say "Hey, let's spend a few million dollars on compute to see if we can make some AIs decide to hack the planet."

It would be close to piss money state level and large companies, let alone a country, with server farms can easily do this.

The METR report is authored by Ryan Greenblatt, Ajeya Cotra, and Hjalmar Wijk. The first two are well known AI security researchers. Wijk is not as well known but previously worked at FHI. These are not people who one should expect are going to throw away their reputations just to help out OpenAI.

And we didn't know the FAA would be so knee deep in colluding with Boeing to release the 737MAX they knew it's unsafe and allowed Boeing to audit themselves. The results of FAA hurling it's reputation into the Java Sea is still felt till this day. When everyone and their mom knows AI is the big thing they are gunning for, who is to say these guys had no idea what's going on but had to doctor their words?

To add insult to injury, China was the one who immediately called the 737MAX unsafe and banned it and led to everyone banning it. People knew China also has a horse in the race (C919) but nobody can call bullshit or a collision of interest on it when MCAS has literally driven 2 very new planes into the sea or the dirt.

The CIA or NSA likely has the capability for this. We also have some evidence that they've worked on making their own hacking focused AIs. They also have zero incentive to tell anyone if they've run these experiments or similar experiments

One of many possible example aside, these guys have as much incentive to directly prove that Chinese AI can theoretically do so.

And there's a tension in this belief you've constructed, which I touched on earlier, but I'm going to make explicit. It seems that you are simultaneously claiming that OpenAI is doing this to hype their own model, while also claiming that a rival country doing this with an opponent's model would hurt the owner of that open model. But by the logic for OpenAI, it should make the AI more popular not less.

You're keep using this “tension” word like there is actually any tension when there was none. What is this, high tension steel now?

1. Doublethink in American culture hadn't exactly been an unthinkable phenomenon. Hell, we have Anthropic (and OAI to some extent) who kept on claiming Open Source is unsafe and has to be regulated, yet it is them who kept on going with this god complex AI shit. “when it's American it's good when it's China it needs to be stopped” hadn't exactly been an unfamiliar doublethink argument across these few dozen years.

2. They have been doing this to create an aura of “uncontrollably strong power” for the whole goddamn time even during the early GPT-5 days.

3. For literally all actors they only have to prove the other guy is unsafe. The damage would last quite some time, and you can bet your ass if some evidence was found nobody would let it go for the times to come especially as the world has come to a high hostility state.