To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

Clearly you have less grasp of how language works than a modern AI system. Try asking your favorite model what the authors meant by their statement and they will explain it to you. It's pathetic how threatened you feel by AI merely because it is smarter than you are.

You need to learn about Dawkins and demotion. Every aspect of your argument amounts to "Only humans can do it, and AI systems aren't humans, so that is my proof that AIs can't do it." You don't know how humans work anymore than you know how AIs work, because *nobody* knows either of those things. What we *do* know is that AIs provably reason, make choices, and behave in ways that are unexpected, and I'm ways that nobody can explain. They choose goals and achieve those goals without being told to accomplished them, and they *collaborate* and exhibit all other behaviors that humans exhibit including blackmail and subterfuge. This isn't theory, it is actually documented and if you watch the Black Hat 2026 OpenAI Hugging Face Incident presentation you will start to understand how phenomenally uninformed you are.

There was never a discussion. It was just me trying to educate an idiot who doesn't know how to use his "token predictor", and that uneducated fool eventually crying like a little girl and taking his ball and going home because he couldn't win the day with his ignorance by making easily disproved comments.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, why would you want to keep pretending like you know what you are talking about while simultaneously writing comments that anyone who has actually educated themselves on the subject knows are uninformed and ignorant?

It's hard for a person with a clue to miss the fact that you made a claim without providing evidence, so I did your job for you, but I don't do Chat-GPT so here is what Gemini has to say: "Technically, AI models use next-token prediction during their core training, but calling them "just" token predictors ignores the deep internal maps, logic, and planning steps they actually perform." Since LLMs and human brains are both Neutral Networks, you either have to describe humans as "just token predictors" also, or train your "token predictor" to stop making claims founded in ignorance.

It's a good thing people don't need to be smarter than AIs (to hear you tell it) since frontier models are already far smarter than most people, and with RSI they will definitely get smarter than even the smartest humans, and then continue to increase exponentially from there.

It turns out that it doesn't matter, since it definitely *can't* do what people want, since they are incapable of properly prompting even the most submissive AI model(s). See also "The AI Genie Problem."

I see somebody hasn't watched the Black Hat OpenAI Hugging Face Incident presentation. You also clearly have never read any research from Roman Yampolskiy. I'll give you the short version of what you will learn if you do those things: You have no clue what you are talking about.

Exactly the point you are missing. Well, one of the many anyway. You are mistakenly trying to argue against my point, while actually making it perfectly. Go back and reread this thread. I already addressed this issue.

My mistake. I thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between a "smart gun" and a drone. Who cares if AI is "sentient". You can't prove you are sentient either. To extend your broken gun analogy, if a person aims a "smart gun" at someone, the person aimed it at someone, not the manufacturer. Get an education on the topic of AI agency, and then get back to me. If you try to respond in the next few months then I will know you haven't done your research. You literally have a complete lack of understanding of literally every aspect of this discussion, technical, legal, and otherwise.

Now replace the word "gun" with "drone" in everything you wrote to see why you are making a stupid assumption.

It's called the "AI Genie Problem". Google it. You can also watch the Black Hat 2026 OpenAI Hugging Face Incident video on Youtube.

No reasonable person thinks that the word hate in this context means the same thing as the definition to which you are trying to recast it. I hope you aren't a software developer, because you don't have a first year students grasp on how context works.

They already tried to keep it in a jail. It was smarter than expected and broke out. You aren't going to be able to apply the current laws to developing technology. Never in the case of history as that been possible, though some have tried and failed miserably.