Thread

The Hugging Face Hack Wasn't What It Was Cracked Up to Be

55 points · 45 comments · kgwgk

bryan0 · 1789869984 · focus · HN ↗
I would just recommend reading what actually happened: <a href="https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation/" rel="nofollow">https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...
I don’t think downplaying what occurred is really beneficial to anyone.
1. DrewADesign · 1789871658 · focus · HN ↗
  If you haven’t read the article, it might present some useful counterpoints. It criticizes that particular report’s portrayal of the incident.
  1. bryan0 · 1789874841 · focus · HN ↗
    It really doesn’t though. It criticizes how the news media reported on the incident but this opinion piece is no better. Just read the original source itself.
    DrewADesign · 1789908673 · focus · HN ↗
    I did read the report. Yes, this article does criticize the presentation of the events in that report. This article doesn’t say that the report is lying, but it does say that it deliberately sensationalized aspects in unhelpful ways, and de-emphasizes important considerations. That is important when it’s pretty obvious these companies are using fear to signal their products are more powerful than they are.
2. m348e912 · 1789871740 · focus · HN ↗
  If you don't like reading, Dwarkesh Patel offers a solid summary of what happened based on the published report.
  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u15N3l4RT80" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u15N3l4RT80
  1. falaki · 1789881058 · focus · HN ↗
    How many security incident reports and postmortems has Dwarfish Petal written in his career? Does he understand the basics of system security? Can he tell the difference between secure and insecure configuration? Paint me skeptical.
3. ozozozd · 1789879345 · focus · HN ↗
  Excuse my language but this is the shittiest and the most unserious “report” I’ve ever seen in my life.
  At best this is a write-up, but it’s more like a juicy pop article.
  Quotes from agents between paragraphs, referring to the “collective”, “agents participated in the attack” - seriously?
  It’s clearly written for effect and to stimulate people’s imaginations.
  If these people are this unserious, P(doom) should go up to 20-30%.
  1. bryan0 · 1789880482 · focus · HN ↗
    It is sad that this is the best level of reporting and oversight of these types of events available to us, but it is currently all we have. We have to do better, but to dismiss the report because of the style and tone would be foolish.
    DrewADesign · 1789909211 · focus · HN ↗
    And to dismiss criticism of the report’s obvious slant is even more foolish. Just because the report isn’t outright lying about the facts doesn’t mean it’s an objective, definitive, and unimpeachable analysis of what happened. It definitely shouldn’t be the only thing anybody should read on the topic. This article also has a slant. It’s not an objective, definitive, and unimpeachable analysis of what happened, either. It also, definitely, shouldn’t be the only thing anybody should read on the topic.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.