← All topics

irregular

3 captures, most recent first.

gavin leech (Non-Reaso... @gleech

— saved image

gavin leech (Non-Reaso... @gle... · 15h

AI safety hall of fame

Microsoft engineer who forgot to implement system prompt repetition / decided post-training wasn't needed for the Sydney launch

OpenAI guy who decided that it wasn't worth monitoring sandboxed evals

The whole staff of xAI 2025

Irregular
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A text-only tweet by gavin leech listing an 'AI safety hall of fame' of sarcastic entries: a Microsoft engineer on the Sydney launch, an OpenAI person who skipped monitoring sandboxed evals, xAI's 2025 staff, and Irregular.

ai safetysydneyxaiirregularsandboxed evalsgavin leech

Ben Recht @beenwrekt

— with a reply from @nathan8468... (Nathan Helm-B..., apparently Nathan's own account) — saved image

Ben Recht
@beenwrekt  [Follow]

Isn't putting METR & Redwood Research in charge of investigating the Hugging Face incident like putting Irregular in charge of cybersecurity testing?

3:49 PM · Aug 26, 2026 · 4,731 Views

[2 replies, 4 reposts, 33 likes, 7 bookmarks]

Relevant v          View quotes >

Nathan Helm-B... [verified] @nathan8468... · 13s

This analogy doesn't make sense to me. Irregular is an oafishly incompetent cybersecurity eval outsource-contractor.

METR & Redwood are the crazy cracked outside orgs who have been warning the world for years that AI companies are investing too little in internal cybersecurity.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Ben Recht's tweet comparing METR and Redwood Research investigating the Hugging Face incident to putting Irregular in charge of cybersecurity testing, with a top reply (13s old when captured) from an account displayed as 'Nathan Helm-B...' disputing the analogy. The reply is a public post in the thread, so transcribed.

ai safetyhugging face incidentmetrredwood researchirregularai lab cybersecurity

Zack Korman @ZackKorman

— saved image

Zack Korman @ZackKorman · 22h
The latest OpenAI "oops we did a hack": I'm sick of this PR trick where companies will position themselves as security experts after an incident to psyop you into forgetting THEY messed up.

It's like if Enron wrote a white paper on responsible accounting practices.

[quoted screenshot, OpenAI blog, "Irregular" heading]
real domain. Because the testing environment was mistakenly connected to the internet, the model exploited a real website, mistaking it to be part of the simulated environment. This did not
[gap]
their review. Irregular is also developing a white paper to share best practices for containment and securely running cyber evals We look forward
[cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet from Zack Korman criticizing OpenAI's response to a cyber-eval incident (referenced in seq 364/366) as self-serving PR, comparing it to Enron writing an accounting ethics paper; embeds a screenshot of OpenAI's blog post explaining a testing environment was mistakenly connected to the internet and a model exploited a real website.

openaiai safety evaluationscybersecurityirregular