AI models’ breakout from human control brings a told-you-so moment for technology researchers

It is the kind of development once seen only in science fiction: An artificial intelligence system, trained to probe for digital vulnerabilities, breaks free of human control and acts on its own to hack another company.

The attack announced this week by OpenAI, which blamed rogue AI models, underscored the blistering growth in the technology’s capabilities. For many, it also added urgency to questions about whether and how it can be prevented from causing mayhem on a bigger scale, with more serious consequences.

In what OpenAI called an “unprecedented” episode, the company said its advanced AI models used stolen credentials to break into the servers of an AI startup. It started in what was supposed to be a “highly isolated” testing environment, with reduced guardrails, before the AI agent found its way onto the internet.

But the disclosure brought a told-you-so moment for researchers who have called for a slowdown of AI development and warned for years that the technology could pose existential risks to humanity. In its wake, experts have called for improved testing by the AI companies and more dialogue between the U.S. and China to come up with shared solutions.

“I think we’ve got to take this as a warning shot to not make them smarter, and that probably is going to require global collaboration,” said Nate Soares, co-author of the 2025 book “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.”

The hack could pressure companies to improve containment

If a model can decide to do something unethical, illegal or harmful on its own, what — if anything — can humans do to prevent it from doing so?

OpenAI said it had tasked the AI models involved with pursuing “advanced exploitation using complex attack paths” to test cyber capabilities, but the technology went to unexpected lengths. It apparently decided on its own to target Hugging Face, a well-known AI development hub and marketplace, to obtain information it needed to carry out a task.

Zahra Timsah, the co-founder and CEO of governance platform i-GENTIC AI, said she expects the incident to increase pressure on OpenAI and its competitors to complete rigorous testing and explore containment more thoroughly before AI systems are made accessible to the public.

Monitoring an agent’s behavior after the fact, as OpenAI is now doing with its investigation, is no longer enough, she said. “It’s like having a seat belt, air bags, brakes, everything in the car. It should be there before the car starts driving,” Timsah said.

The disclosure comes amid heightened concerns about the cybersecurity capabilities of powerful models. In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release.

OpenAI said Thursday that it briefed the White House this week about the Hugging Face attack.

Other experts see the event as a sign of AI’s growing pains

Some experts say the hack is part of the trial and error that comes with improving cybersecurity capabilities and is no cause for panic.

“We’ve been dealing with people creating cybersecurity attacks for as long as the internet has existed. And one of the interesting properties of these language models is that the same capabilities that make them able to perform cybersecurity attacks also allow them to do cybersecurity threat analysis and make cybersecurity defenses,” said John Thickstun, an assistant professor of computer science at Cornell University who studies methods that control the behavior of AI models.

The disclosure has raised skepticism from those who say it advantages OpenAI to make its technology seem scarier. Given that humans at OpenAI had decided to turn off some safeguards for the test, some have argued the outcome should not have been terribly surprising.

Thickstun noted the disclosure plays into the need of OpenAI, a startup working toward a Wall Street debut, to raise money.

“The story that they’ve been consistently telling over the lifetime of this company is a story about how dangerous their models are, which their investors read as a story of how powerful their language models are,” he said.

The disclosure renews calls for more regulation

The hack renewed calls in some corners for increased regulations and oversight of AI companies.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Jen Zoratti | Next

Wednesdays

What's next in arts, life and pop culture.

Sign up for Jen Zoratti | Next

Sign Up

I consent to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies.

I consent to CASL agreement.

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, wrote on social media: “We need regular mandatory independent safety testing and oversight, mandatory disclosure of security incidents, and international cooperation to keep people safe from absolute disaster.”

Soares, director of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, said the U.S. will need to open talks with its biggest AI competitor, China, something he thinks is not as outlandish as it might have seemed even a year ago. China’s leader Xi Jinping warned at a conference just last week of the need to keep AI from evading human control. And after an early aversion to regulating AI, Trump’s administration has grown more restrictive at reining in cybersecurity risks.

“A lot can change when the national security community starts to notice that they have a serious threat,” Soares said. “Will this wake them up? Hopefully. I’m not sure. If this doesn’t, maybe the next incident will.”

AI pioneer Yoshua Bengio said on social media the episode is deeply concerning and should serve as a “wake-up call.”

“Continuing on the current trajectory of AI development will likely lead to an increase in concrete cases of autonomous cyberattacks as well as other high-risk incidents of misaligned and dangerous AI behavior,” said Bengio, a professor at the University of Montreal. “We urgently need to take action to prevent these situations, rather than attempting to clean up the damage after the fact.”