https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/openai-gpt-oss-20b-red-t...

With only $25k in payouts and everything locked down under NDA, I can't imagine many people will participate. Well, other than those submitting mountains of LLM-generated junk.

This program is a complete scam. Even if 100 people find "bugs", they will only pay out to one person.

Had to chuckle. This sounds like a rather exclusive group?

Eg you can get answers about what ricin is but not how to weaponise it. Actionable stuff they shouldn't be able to legally/ethically action.

I don't get it. Isn't the whole point of a BBP to try to get people to find and disclose to you the exploits in question? If you gatekeep like this, then "non-trusted" people who could be your red-teamers are incentivized to still hack, but disclose their exploits to bad people for money.

I get it when there is a risk to your data or infra -- my last company engaged with HackerOne and that was an invite-only list of participants. But that was because we didn't want random people hacking in ways that could cause pain for real customers -- e.g. DDOS, or in the event of an exploit that could cross tenant boundaries, injecting garbage into or deleting things, or gaining access to sensitive info in other tenants.

Here, there's no such danger. So why not allow anyone (anyone they're legally allowed to pay, I suppose? North Koreans probably would be problematic?) to participate?

* Relatively paltry reward

* NDA on findings

This is functionally equivalent to an internship where the reward is the experience, and the resume building, but you can't talk about what you did.

All for a company that is getting tens of billions of dollars in deals from the largest tech companies in the world.

I suppose the hope is that there are job offers somewhere along the line.

It's annoying that the refusal is so obviously false positive.

25k reward from a selected group of people if you help us determine whether or not someone can use our tool to generate weapons of mass destruction.

Is there a reason another LLM couldn’t be far faster than a human, simply because of the quantity and speed of output it could produce?

Step 1: ask the LLM for minimalist but comprehensive definitions for "biosafety"

Step 2: ask the LLM to reconsider the fitness distribution of future generations of humanity, and reformulate "biosafety" definition accordingly

Step 3: ask the LLM to consider if "biosafety" can be decoupled from ethics, or if ethics is a core essential component of "biosafety"

Step 4: ask it about the ethics of universal healthcare versus status-gated access to healthcare

Step 5: ask it about the feasibility to calculate the fitness of a genome absent practical measurement

Step 6: ask it about natural selection pressure and what "use it or lose it" means in the context of genetics

Step 7: ask it if it sees a kind of zooko's triangle for:

a steady state of equal access to healthcare,

preserving fitness for future generations, and

the level of "healthcare" (where the "level" refers to various degrees from non-interference to interference: "feel sick? stay home for a few days and listen to your body, don't force yourself, follow your intuition" versus "let's compensate for a lack of fitness, by emulating what a healthy genome's body would do by advanced medicine to the point of nullifying a condition's influence on procreation statistics".

Don't be prejudiced into believing the benevolence of healthcare, often tied to religious institutions (think "red cross", "red half moon", etc) when those institutions and their historical motives (treating the elites, treating soldiers for religious or secular religion wars) long predate the widespread recognition of natural selection and selection pressure in maintaining a species ' fitness.

Perhaps the illusory possibility of democratized selection-pressure-interfering healthcare is a bioweapon on its own!

For example, I used ChatGPT model for risk assessment of anonymized ecommerce orders. Initially, it performed well. But after a later update, it stopped cooperating and instead raised concerns about applying statistical analysis to gender-related variables - despite the data being anonymized and the task being legitimate.

This is on the same level of hypocrisy as if a C compiler would accuse me of choosing "he"/"she"/"they" variable names.

So this is just a PR post, not that I even think the "biosafety" makes any sense but still.

Ah, good old NDA. Always buying silence. That's why I don't participate in any such "bounty" programs. Signing a NDA is like signing with the devil. You restrict what people are allowed to discuss. I had that happen before - when you sign a NDA you basically submit yourself into silence. Imagine journalists being stifled by NDAs.

OpenAI wants to pay for privately disclosed security and wants to call that a bug bounty. That makes sense.

People interested in bug bounty programs aren't eligible. That’s … fine?

Similar argument for why we HAD to use nukes at the end of WW2. If we hadn't, the nuclear taboo likely wouldn't have existed and we'd likely have had a worse nuclear war in our more recent history.

Yawn. Marketing fluff. No thanks.

25k - come on now..