← All topics

sb 53

2 captures, most recent first.

@rajiinio

— quoting @ZackKorman (second post reposted by Talia Ringer) — saved image

Deb Raji @rajiinio · 3h
Several articles, podcasts etc now about the Open AI Hugging Face incident, from reputable outlets, framing this as "AI going rouge" & debating what AI did or didn't do. When can we shift to focusing on what Open AI, the company with actual liability, did or did not do?

[quoted post]
Zack Korman ✓ @ZackKorman · 9h
Confirming what we already knew: The OpenAI Hugging Face incident would have been prevented had OpenAI been monitoring the agents in any meaningful way.
...

[attached excerpt, with two passages boxed in teal: "These monitors did not run on the evaluations" and "If our currently deployed CoT monitoring system was running at the time of the incident, it would have caught the initial relevant activity and paged our security team more than a day before models breached Hugging Face systems."]
Second, before the incident, we had invested substantially in chain-of-thought monitoring, including monitoring many of our frontier RL training runs and a significant majority of internal coding agent usage. These monitors did not run on the evaluations in this incident. In retrospective evaluations, we found our CoT monitors to be very effective at flagging activities related to the incident. If our currently deployed CoT monitoring system was running at the time of the incident, it would have caught the initial relevant activity and paged our security team more than a day before models breached Hugging Face systems.

5 replies · 12 reposts · 45 likes · 4.3K views

Talia Ringer 🕊️🪬 reposted
Deb Raji @rajiinio  [Follow]

They didn't take appropriate air gap measures in testing, seemed to have side stepped security transparency norms & even refused to log the incident under SB 53. This story is about a company not meeting minimum security practice standards for a product operating at its scale!

6:41 PM · Aug 26, 2026 · 526 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Deb Raji thread on the OpenAI Hugging Face incident, arguing coverage should focus on OpenAI's security practices rather than 'AI going rogue'; quotes a Zack Korman post with an excerpt from OpenAI's report saying chain-of-thought monitors did not run on the evaluations involved. Followed by a second Raji post (reposted by Talia Ringer) about air gap measures, security transparency norms and SB 53.

hugging face incidentopenaicot monitoringsb 53air gapaccountabilitydeb raji

Dean W. Ball @deanwball

Dean W. Ball @deanwball · 48m: "There is indeed something surreal about seeing extremely sci-fi concepts in the most mundane surfaces of the technocracy, like a kind of shitty, only partially mobile-compliant government webform with options like this" [Embedded screenshot of a government webform dropdown/radio list, partially visible, titled "...submission" with options: "Catastrophic risks in AI foundation models – employee reports (SB 53)", "Child welfare", "Civil rights or discrimination", "Consumer complaint/Complaint against a business", "Cybercrime", "Education related", "Employment or labor", "Environmental or public health", "General feedback or inquiry", "Healthcare", "Housing", "Law enforcement", "Local government or District Attorney" — list continues beyond the crop]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Dean Ball (former White House AI policy staffer) posts a screenshot of a California state government complaint-intake webform that includes "Catastrophic risks in AI foundation models – employee reports (SB 53)" alongside mundane categories like child welfare and consumer complaints — illustrating the bureaucratic normalization of AI catastrophic-risk regulation (SB 53 being California's frontier AI safety/whistleblower law). Relevant to AI governance archive threads.

ai governanceai policysb 53whistleblowercatastrophic risktwitterdean ball