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.

That’s assuming security is something you solve once. It isn’t. Every security system is built by humans, tested by humans, and eventually bypassed by humans. We don’t abandon operating systems because vulnerabilities exist: we patch them, improve them, and layer defenses. AI changes the pace, not the fundamental nature of cybersecurity.

It was just as you’d expect: This isn’t an AI problem! It’s the same human problem we’ve always had: misconfigurations, weak security, and avoidable mistakes. AI just punishes those errors faster and more effectively than traditional software ever could. Anyone who continues to rest will be severely punished.

I can totally understand that. Personally, however, it’s particularly important to me at the moment to switch from the cloud to local hardware.

There are lots of awesome OSAI! But today, they are completely outperformed by OWAI and closed AI. My guess: that won’t change in future.

That distinction is totally correct in principle, but in practice almost no frontier model releases its training data because of licensing, privacy, and sheer scale. Today, Open Weight AI has become the common compromise: useful for research and local use, even if it falls well short of the traditional open source definition.

Google built its dominance by becoming the gateway to the web. The EU is increasingly saying that if you own the gate, you do not get to decide that your own businesses always go through first while everyone else waits outside. 🤷

Inviting Dave Eggers to OpenAI HQ was basically booking a magician and handing him a flamethrower: Still, if your technology can survive a hostile keynote from a famous author, that is probably healthier than another room full of executives applauding a demo.

Lucky you!

I‘ve been on identi.ca back in 2008. What about you? 🤷

Unlike you, I always speak openly under my own name. Unlike you, I don’t run an army of sock puppets. Unlike you, I’ve been active on the Web and Fediverse for decades. Unlike you, I’m not a block warden. Go and troll somewhere else. Bye! 👋

Paying a ransom doesn’t buy trust: It buys hope from people who have already proven they’re willing to extort you! If criminals learn that victims pay, asking for a second ransom isn’t a betrayal of the deal. It’s just the next logical business decision. 🤷

If AI can already chain together credential theft, vulnerability discovery, and exploitation with minimal human input, model capability is no longer the only race that matters. Security, containment, and responsible deployment need to advance just as quickly, or they’ll become the weakest link.

Absolutely! 💯

Are you still hoping that he’ll learn at some point?

Both Washington and Beijing now treat AI less like software and more like oil or nuclear technology. Once that happens, export controls are almost inevitable. The real question is whether open weight AI make those controls increasingly irrelevant over time.

At least in this case, they actually know what they’re talking about. ✅

Funny how AI suddenly becomes sacred intellectual property only when someone else catches up. If the evidence is real, enforce the rules. If it is not, this risks looking less like protecting innovation and more like protecting market leaders from uncomfortable competition.

This is exactly the kind of AI competition users should want: more choice, more deployment options, and less vendor lock in. If European AI companies can scale without being swallowed by US tech giants, that’s good for customers, resilience, and the AI ecosystem as a whole.

Certainly for China. The US still seems to think it can achieve anything with this nonsense.