— saved image
[Eric Schmidt 🇺🇦 reposted] Oliver Habryka @ohabryka Those kinds of things only paper over the long-term problems. You can do this, but then you will just be taken by surprise when the model is super good at persuasion and social engineering one year later. The primary focus of the AI Safety community has been (and should continue to be) how to handle the transition to substantially superhuman AI. Security improvements are not that relevant to that transition. There are some people who disagreed, but at least some of them updated after Hugging Face that this was a wrong focus. It would have been really bad to make a desperate effort to prevent the Hugging Face attack. No one was really hurt, and it is a massive warning shot that will probably cause people to invest much more seriously into this kind of thing. Covering up low-stakes failures while concentrating risks in high-stakes failures is a common pattern in various industries, and tons of organizational principles are oriented around not doing that. The same applies at a societal level. 10:44 PM · Oct 2, 2026 · 1,153 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Post by Oliver Habryka (reposted by Eric Schmidt) arguing that security patches only paper over long-term problems, that AI safety's focus should remain the transition to superhuman AI, and that the Hugging Face attack was a useful warning shot; commentary only, no technical detail of the incident.
ai safetyhugging face incidentwarning shotsecuritypersuasionsuperhuman ai
