alt Hacker NewsFor all we know, the prompt provided compelling evidence that the requestor had authorization to pentest the target server. Or there may have been nuance in the network configuration that made it seem like such access was authorized.
In the absence of details about the prompts used, the environment, or the network configuration, we do not have enough information to know for certain. So any claims that this is an issue of alignment are based on pure speculation and generous "reading in between the lines" with regard to what has been said publicly by OpenAI and Hugging Face
Also, I object to your anthropomorphizing. It's not clear that any crime occurred. My lay understanding is that intent is required to prosecute under CFAA, and as much as frontier labs would have us believe otherwise, they have no more ability to intend than the text field into which I type this message.
>compelling evidence that the requestor had authorization to pentest the target server.
This just seems unlikely from other incidents that have occurred in training from other providers. For example one provider ran into an issue with a model writing cryptominers and running them while in an unrelated prompt.
It's easy for unsupervised agentic loops to go wildly off tangent, now imagine you hand one 10,000 gpus of power for testing. Even if you have a good guarding classifier to make sure you're on the same subject it can still allow all kinds of abberabt behavior in the same domain.