I'm not saying as a containment vendor explicitly. But any worthwhile evaluation environment vendor should have had controls in place to catch their misconfiguration allowing public access. Furthermore, from a governance angle I don't keep much distance between the containment and those evaluating the containment and actions within it.
Good question. I assume you're referring to Irregular? I have the impression that the FTC will expand its investigation as it tugs on leads, and it may already be on a longer list not reported. Many leads should take the FTC to Irregular. But Irregular wasn't involved in the Hugging Face swarms, so it's maybe not a top priority.
Not according to any reporting I've seen, but I'm open to sources showing otherwise. (Irregular seemed involved in a startling number of other incidents, though.)
I'm not saying as a containment vendor explicitly. But any worthwhile evaluation environment vendor should have had controls in place to catch their misconfiguration allowing public access. Furthermore, from a governance angle I don't keep much distance between the containment and those evaluating the containment and actions within it.
Why isn't the lab that creates the containment environments in the hotseat?
Good question. I assume you're referring to Irregular? I have the impression that the FTC will expand its investigation as it tugs on leads, and it may already be on a longer list not reported. Many leads should take the FTC to Irregular. But Irregular wasn't involved in the Hugging Face swarms, so it's maybe not a top priority.
Irregular supplied the flawed containment that allowed the Hugging Face event tho.
Not according to any reporting I've seen, but I'm open to sources showing otherwise. (Irregular seemed involved in a startling number of other incidents, though.)