Thread

OpenAI agent hacked Australian government website, PM says

256 points · 198 comments · rudy6912

vintagedave · 1790241637 · focus · HN ↗
> the breach took place on 18 June - Open AI informed the government with an email to a general address on 10 September
So we have a company hacking a foreign government's websites and data. And, in terms of ethics, they take almost three months to notify; and in terms of competence, appear to have no formal contacts nor to have found one in that time.
Once an American business starts hacking allied governments, it's time for strict responses, yes? Replace the governance (board and C-level)? Remove financial incentives and open the company - open weights, open training, per its original 'open' ethos?
Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
1. ben_w · 1790242664 · focus · HN ↗
  > And, in terms of ethics, they take almost three months to notify;
  Kinda worse than that. It took between 10 and 40 days, not 3 months, between the organisation knowing and the reporting.
  August (precise date unknown) – OpenAI said it became aware of a potential breach during a broader review of "misaligned model activity" 10 September – An email from OpenAI lands in the public inbox of Services Australia, the general services hub of the federal government, informing of the incident
  - <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgl73pxgndwt?post=asset%3A69668a7f-8199-4515-acdd-a9de6a2e6b7c#post" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgl73pxgndwt?post=asset%3A696...
  > open weights, open training
  Given it was the AI agents which did the hacking, doing this will result in basically every organisation at least as rich as the government of Tuvalu being able to hack anyone at any time.
  > Altman is busy saying there needs to be regulation, but in terms of what OpenAI does, he can control that already.
  Him having control would be an improvement on the reality.
  1. BlueTemplar · 1790252675 · focus · HN ↗
    We don't know what kind of 'hacking' this involved, in fact at least some of the files were publicly available.
    Compare with the Bluetouff affair (2014) :
    <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist-fined-4000-plus-for-publishing-public-documents/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalis...
    NotE how he was found guilty by the 2nd court for something more 'subjective' than 'objective' : for having confessed that he later found an authentication page that had failed to protect the documents.
    How can you make a swarm of agents "feel guilty" ?
    SiempreViernes · 1790255711 · focus · HN ↗
    The word "found" is different from the word "feel"; I'm not sure why you involved feelings at all: Bluetouff was sentenced because he admitted he had seen evidence the documents were supposed to be restricted but chose to publish parts of them anyway.
    If you go into someones garden an copy their work, it does make a big difference if you admit to seeing the sign saying "private property, keep out".
    BlueTemplar · 1790263943 · focus · HN ↗
    Because in other circumstances, a hacker might have decided to stop there, and not only not publish, but instead warn the website about their security flaw.
    Especially after Bluetouff was found guilty.
    In fact, I expect this to have happened many times, but "hacker did the right thing" is much less likely to make headlines.
    Meanwhile, agent swarms seem to be (mostly ?) incapable of having this kind of moral compass, at least for now. (And OpenAI isn't doing much better, cough.)

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.