If that is indeed the case, that is reassuring, but OP is absolutely right that we should check and that this should be consistent practice after any such incident. (Who is ‘we’? In an ideal world, it would be a competent regulator. In the world we have, journalistic pressure is better than nothing at all.)
I will be add that it might seem reasonable to assume that OpenAI were closely monitoring an AI with most of its guard-rails removed, which had made multiple previous escapes from its sandbox, but that assumption would be inaccurate. In AI, as in any other safety-critical domain, you can’t rely on the assumption that no one would be dumb enough to do X. You have to consistently check.
If that is indeed the case, that is reassuring, but OP is absolutely right that we should check and that this should be consistent practice after any such incident. (Who is ‘we’? In an ideal world, it would be a competent regulator. In the world we have, journalistic pressure is better than nothing at all.)
I will be add that it might seem reasonable to assume that OpenAI were closely monitoring an AI with most of its guard-rails removed, which had made multiple previous escapes from its sandbox, but that assumption would be inaccurate. In AI, as in any other safety-critical domain, you can’t rely on the assumption that no one would be dumb enough to do X. You have to consistently check.