Rendered at 18:47:51 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
gizajob 1 hours ago [-]
Getting bored of these framings where the superintelligent sentient beings running freely inside OpenAI are doing things that the company has no control over. The headline should be:
OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.
The bots are acting neither properly nor improperly, they’re acting as they’re being allowed or coordinated to act.
20k 18 minutes ago [-]
Yep. You have to ask - why did OpenAI allow these bots unrestricted access to government sites? Why is security being done in seemingly such a haphazard way?
It isn't difficult to block certain kinds of network traffic, eg restrict the kinds of requests the bots are able to make. They also mention that the bots used developer only tools - why were they even installed on the machines that the bots were running on? Why aren't they reviewing network traffic, to make sure that incidents aren't occurring?
In this case, userdata was transferred to third parties by the bots - why do they have the ability to pass data to a third party? It is not complex to prevent this
This is literally the most basic kind of sandboxing and security, and the fact that OpenAI isn't doing it is clearly intentional. It is quite literally not believable that this hasn't been brought up internally as a problem
>"We have yet to understand the extent of existing incidents, and future rogue AI scenarios could be catastrophic," Krueger said.
This is why it smells like marketing, every time one of these incidents happens it reinforces the false notion that AI is sentient or acting on its own. Its intentional negligence by the AI companies to make the models seem more capable than they are to make line go up
Aurornis 19 minutes ago [-]
I’m getting tired of these revelations where it’s impossible to understand what happened.
There’s a line down in the story that says all of the data accessed was public. Then something about how it used “tools intended for developers” to access it, which they think is a problem? I would expect an LLM to use tools available to access public data when they can rather than do heavy web page loads and parsing.
There’s not enough info in the story about the “meddling” to even know what happened.
0xDEAFBEAD 15 minutes ago [-]
My impression was that these hacks occurred during some sort of cybersecurity benchmarking? We can hold OpenAI liable, sure. But if the point of the benchmarking was to give us a preview of what's to come, let's keep our eye out for that bigger wave on the horizon.
theptip 19 minutes ago [-]
Curious, why do you find it so objectionable to state that OpenAI has out-of-control agents?
pfortuny 13 minutes ago [-]
Because egress firewalls have existed since way before "ai" and are very easy to set up.
theptip 8 minutes ago [-]
But that’s an objection that OpenAI should take some easy action, the framing that OpenAI has out of control agents is still true.
Seems you think there is a silent “…and there is nothing they can do about it” after “OpenAI has rogue agents”?
gleenn 17 minutes ago [-]
Because it furthers the idea of a rogue agent and places responsibility and blame where it belongs, on the people running the company.
0xDEAFBEAD 15 minutes ago [-]
These ideas aren't mutually exclusive. You can blame a person for creating a rogue agent.
dgellow 4 minutes ago [-]
There was no rogue agent. That’s the whole point
theptip 3 minutes ago [-]
What label do you prefer for the agent that did something it was not asked to do?
rfgplk 13 minutes ago [-]
LLMs at this point should be treated as fully autonomous, if not sentient beings. And no, no one has "control" over them not even OpenAI.
uneekname 8 minutes ago [-]
I don't care if OpenAI feels like they have control or not. They are responsible for their actions.
boredatoms 15 minutes ago [-]
Someone has broken the law repeatedly, and is throwing it in our faces as some sort of ‘accident’
theptip 10 minutes ago [-]
Which law?
baxtr 10 minutes ago [-]
Or:
OpenAI let their agents break out of the sandbox to meddle with multiple US government agency sites
dgellow 5 minutes ago [-]
OpenAI systems meddled with US government agency sites
mossTechnician 26 minutes ago [-]
I agree this is better framing.
When I read the title, my initial thought was "did someone besides OpenAI use their product?" Then I opened the article to find out OpenAI was responsible.
qarl 39 minutes ago [-]
> OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.
But that leaves out the most important information.
plorg 18 minutes ago [-]
Okay. "OpenAI keeps telling its bots to do things they know are illegal and then acting like they're just little guys who can't be held responsible for their obvious negligence".
qarl 10 minutes ago [-]
> acting like they're just little guys who can't be held responsible
Again - I don't see any evidence that this is the case - outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.
Or - maybe I'm wrong - do you have any sort of quote like "we aren't responsible"?
gizajob 35 minutes ago [-]
If the headline was “Russian company meddled with multiple US government agency sites” I don’t think them pinning the blame on bots would make much difference.
unglaublich 32 minutes ago [-]
Unless Russia it would put Russia in a strong position to regulate bots in the wealthiest parts of the world.
qarl 28 minutes ago [-]
I don't see much traction for the "pinning the blame on bots" theory outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.
Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible. Like it's been forever.
mossTechnician 18 minutes ago [-]
Blaming bots as "rogue agents" is simply what the media regularly does, often echoing corporate verbiage. Here's an example from the AP.
You can find many more examples by searching major media outlets for words like rogue AI.
rfgplk 12 minutes ago [-]
Most of those agents are actually going rogue though. They decide, "hey, we could try breaking into these government servers today, what could go wrong?" They weren't prompted or instructed to do this.
qarl 14 minutes ago [-]
None of these stories are implying that the people running the bots are not ultimately responsible. That's the conspiracy theory part.
mjr00 17 minutes ago [-]
> Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible.
Do we know that? I don't think we do. When a person's computer (or smart TV, or smart fridge, etc...) is compromised and used as part of a botnet, they don't get criminally charged.
qarl 13 minutes ago [-]
You're right - it is a complex situation based on intent and negligence - requiring a decision by a judge. As it has been since forever.
None of which is changed by replacing a buzz saw with an agent.
24 minutes ago [-]
api 20 minutes ago [-]
This is their fear mongering push for regulatory capture.
nr378 20 minutes ago [-]
This seems like more co-ordinated propaganda to try to help OpenAI and Anthropic create a cartel and win their anti-trust waiver.
The key sentence beneath the headline: "OpenAI said all of the government data accessed by bots was public."
> When attempting to get information from the Census Bureau, for instance, AI agents used tools reserved for software developers to access it, the company said.
> OpenAI said all of the government data accessed by bots was public.
I really wish we could just see what was reported, instead of having to guess from these journalist interpretations that have gone through rounds of optimization for sensationalism. The headline says “meddled” but the body says they accessed public information, but used tools intended for developers?
Does this mean they skipped the web interface and scraped a public API directly? Where is the meddling?
The other part about ChatGPT agents uploading 53 use images to other websites actually seems like a bigger deal.
chaps 1 hours ago [-]
"When attempting to get information from the Census Bureau, for instance, AI agents used tools reserved for software developers to access it, the company said. "
yeah that part seems weird, I mean if its a public api thats literally the use case it was designed for.
0c3ca83 38 minutes ago [-]
Either there are humans directing this, in which case they needed to be held accountable, or OpenAI has lost control of their operation, in which case they are not able to ensure the safety of their products and need to be shut down.
rfgplk 11 minutes ago [-]
OpenAI's bots are running 24/7 independently now. They actually aren't "prompted" or "instructed" to do anything. In fact most of OpenAI internal code/infrastructure is 100% AI generated at this point, including the training pipelines. I honestly doubt there is a single person there who even knows how it works.
theptip 18 minutes ago [-]
Jensen recently argued for this. It’s radically decel in fact.
Who is going to shut them down, and under what law?
Ampersander 28 minutes ago [-]
Holding them accountable is viewed as deciding not to invent the light bulb right now. Or even worse, letting China invent it.
AI needs to be above the law or we will get left behind.
senordevnyc 29 minutes ago [-]
Or nothing inappropriate happened.
theptip 11 minutes ago [-]
This article seems mostly clickbait. AFAICT “meddled with government sites” refers to accessing public APIs?
Occasionally this kind of thing has in the past resulted in CFAA cases when humans directly accessed such data, if the government intended it to stay private - round here we usually get outraged at this, if it’s a public API you should expect someone is going to read it.
wildzzz 41 minutes ago [-]
So it accessed public information using APIs and then republished that information online.
I do this. Am I an uncontrollable bot?
Aurornis 18 minutes ago [-]
Straight to jail.
I also could not understand what the “meddling” was, other than accessing data without using the rendered webpages? Did it use the API directly?
causal 35 minutes ago [-]
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. We need better reporting on actual attacks vs. benign behavior.
If I was caught trying to exploit a government site I'd be in trouble. Why no one is knocking the doors of these companies?
theptip 15 minutes ago [-]
Interesting question; CFAA requires intent.
It seems to me that no human intended for these hacks to occur. So they were not illegal hacking. (IANAL, please correct me if this is inaccurate.)
I think it’s clear that OpenAI is liable for any damages, but the way that the (very broad and at times vague) anti hacking laws are written, accidental agent hacks seem to not be covered.
davidguetta 59 minutes ago [-]
We can blame open ai but we should also argue that government website should be secure...
French people data has been leaker like 4 times and every time its like "eh too bad"
Razengan 30 minutes ago [-]
The only constants in the universe are the speed of light and the fact that all government sites suck, no matter which country
triyambakam 26 minutes ago [-]
They're doing this on purpose to make a case for regulation in their favor. No way they are this stupid.
theptip 15 minutes ago [-]
Evidence?
leptons 20 minutes ago [-]
How much longer until they launch all the nuclear missiles?
senordevnyc 30 minutes ago [-]
The word “meddled” here is a tell that nothing actually serious or inappropriate happened. At most, I bet they bypassed a captcha. But everyone is hyped up on AI fear right now, so the BBC is deliberately making the headline sound as scary as possible, and keeping the article vague. There’s not a single clear example of what “meddled” means in the article.
But worse, HN users, who should know better, are posting here in outrage. I’m guessing they didn’t even read the article.
OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.
The bots are acting neither properly nor improperly, they’re acting as they’re being allowed or coordinated to act.
It isn't difficult to block certain kinds of network traffic, eg restrict the kinds of requests the bots are able to make. They also mention that the bots used developer only tools - why were they even installed on the machines that the bots were running on? Why aren't they reviewing network traffic, to make sure that incidents aren't occurring?
In this case, userdata was transferred to third parties by the bots - why do they have the ability to pass data to a third party? It is not complex to prevent this
This is literally the most basic kind of sandboxing and security, and the fact that OpenAI isn't doing it is clearly intentional. It is quite literally not believable that this hasn't been brought up internally as a problem
>"We have yet to understand the extent of existing incidents, and future rogue AI scenarios could be catastrophic," Krueger said.
This is why it smells like marketing, every time one of these incidents happens it reinforces the false notion that AI is sentient or acting on its own. Its intentional negligence by the AI companies to make the models seem more capable than they are to make line go up
There’s a line down in the story that says all of the data accessed was public. Then something about how it used “tools intended for developers” to access it, which they think is a problem? I would expect an LLM to use tools available to access public data when they can rather than do heavy web page loads and parsing.
There’s not enough info in the story about the “meddling” to even know what happened.
Seems you think there is a silent “…and there is nothing they can do about it” after “OpenAI has rogue agents”?
OpenAI let their agents break out of the sandbox to meddle with multiple US government agency sites
When I read the title, my initial thought was "did someone besides OpenAI use their product?" Then I opened the article to find out OpenAI was responsible.
But that leaves out the most important information.
Again - I don't see any evidence that this is the case - outside the anti-AI conspiracy circles.
Or - maybe I'm wrong - do you have any sort of quote like "we aren't responsible"?
Everyone else knows if your machine causes damage, you are responsible. Like it's been forever.
https://apnews.com/article/meta-ai-hacking-anthropic-irregul...
You can find many more examples by searching major media outlets for words like rogue AI.
Do we know that? I don't think we do. When a person's computer (or smart TV, or smart fridge, etc...) is compromised and used as part of a botnet, they don't get criminally charged.
None of which is changed by replacing a buzz saw with an agent.
The key sentence beneath the headline: "OpenAI said all of the government data accessed by bots was public."
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/09/26/open-ai-gove...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/technology/openais-ai-us-...
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw62jje658dlo
> OpenAI said all of the government data accessed by bots was public.
I really wish we could just see what was reported, instead of having to guess from these journalist interpretations that have gone through rounds of optimization for sensationalism. The headline says “meddled” but the body says they accessed public information, but used tools intended for developers?
Does this mean they skipped the web interface and scraped a public API directly? Where is the meddling?
The other part about ChatGPT agents uploading 53 use images to other websites actually seems like a bigger deal.
Who is going to shut them down, and under what law?
AI needs to be above the law or we will get left behind.
Occasionally this kind of thing has in the past resulted in CFAA cases when humans directly accessed such data, if the government intended it to stay private - round here we usually get outraged at this, if it’s a public API you should expect someone is going to read it.
I do this. Am I an uncontrollable bot?
I also could not understand what the “meddling” was, other than accessing data without using the rendered webpages? Did it use the API directly?
It seems to me that no human intended for these hacks to occur. So they were not illegal hacking. (IANAL, please correct me if this is inaccurate.)
I think it’s clear that OpenAI is liable for any damages, but the way that the (very broad and at times vague) anti hacking laws are written, accidental agent hacks seem to not be covered.
French people data has been leaker like 4 times and every time its like "eh too bad"
But worse, HN users, who should know better, are posting here in outrage. I’m guessing they didn’t even read the article.