much better techcrunch article here: https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/26/hugging-face-ceo-calls-for... (that the above post is seemingly entirely based on).

Finally Hugging Face is growing a pair.

When this event happened I was confused why they didn’t file a police report and make OpenAI demonstrate in criminal court that they weren’t engaging in illegal corporate espionage and other rather felonious hacking activities intentionally.

Why did anyone take their word that it was all an accident? Why am I believing the burglar standing in my house?

a) So, this is all from July?

b) And this is before Hugging Face agreed to acquired by NVIDIA, supplier to OpenAI?

As I was falling asleep last night, this thought occurred to me: maybe NVIDIA bought Hugging Face so they prevent HF from litigating OAI for the hacking incident, because if OAI was very publicly sued for this kind of behavior from an agent, it could pour a massive amount of ice water on agent adoption as businesses suddenly see current agent systems as a existential business risk, and it would pop the infrastructure bubble (of which NVIDIAs entire valuation rests). The fact that somehow OAI committed a felony and have managed to pivot the public conversation around it to be aimed at regulatory capture instead of them being held legally accountable is pretty wild.

With the left hand Nvidia takes $100 million from OpenAI, with the right hand it gives $30 billion.

Can we stop these charades? Maybe circular hacking deals are next?

Needs "July 2026" date attached to it, this is old news at this point, Hugging Face got bought by NVIDIA since this story!

AI slop article

This whole thing is still all too weird, the disclosing blog post and whatnot clearly shows how carefully engineered and designed it all was, it's like many thinking heads and hands touched it every step of the way. What amazing times.

I wonder if it's in openai's interest to play nice here. They can't have a precedent of "the future is we do whatever we want with no consequences for screwing up" if they want public interest on their side, but they also can't have "you (our customers) will be held accountable for what you're paying us to do if we screw up." And that's before the IPO interests even come in.

$100M for RubyGems ought to keep the servers running for several years. A policy to pursue and spend such windfalls on security development would make the service antifragile.

That next Nvidia order just got an extra 100M service fee.

The liability question is one of the biggest things people are looking for in the S1. If you sell a dangerous product that harms people or businesses you’re generally liable. It’s as of yet unclear how the big labs intend to account for potential massive liabilities.

Folks tend not to go after companies that are just burning cash, but the second they become legit GAAP profitable (if that ever happens) lawyers will be lining up down the block to sue them for any and every mistake these models make.

“Were you harmed by OpenAI’s models? You may be entitled to Compensation. Call 1-800-SUE-AI-BROS” billboards will be everywhere.

> When Hugging Face tried to investigate, analysing the intrusion meant submitting the attacker’s own code to commercial AI tools. Those tools refused, unable to tell an attacker from a victim.

This is a worrying part as well. Our tool broke into yours but you can not use our tool to fix it - sorry.

I'd argue that those traces MUST be made public!

“ The wording matters. He is not asking for cash. He is asking the company that caused the incident to pay in the one currency it has most of.”

ChatGPT

this is published july 27th. I know HN want's to pile on any negative news these days but this is very old in today's world. Please update the title