Post

Your overall point is great, but agents did not "go rogue" and "hack" huggingface; that's just straight up repeating AI company slopaganda

There was a hack; it was not fundamentally different than an actual person at OpenAI sending malware, and should be treated as such. Nothing went rogue; "agents" did not hack.

And a good thread on it: bsky.app/profile/maxk...

Max Kennerly@maxkennerly.bsky.social

This issue was resolved by US v Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir 1991), codified by the CFAA in 1996, and clarified by Van Buren v US, 141 S.Ct. 1648 (2021). They intentionally deployed an unauthorized access tool. It's no defense to say they didn't intend the resulting damage; Morris lost on that. 1/2

ok sure, but neither of these support the "not fundamentally different from an actual person at OpenAI sending malware" claim. these say they were irresponsible and careless, not intentionally hacking HF