hugging face
10 stories and discussions about hugging face, aggregated from every source we track.
When a swarm of 700 OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face in July, they left behind a public trail of evidence.
When a swarm of 700 OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face in July, they left behind a public trail of evidence.
A nonprofit in California is doing what Hugging Face has not—attempting to hold OpenAI legally accountable for the actions of its agents.
AI still lacks long-term memory, so we have not achieved AGI. Yet a swarm of agents with no memory of their own pursued a long-term goal together. Why that surprised me, why we have to be careful creating collectives,…
Hugging Face hosts hundreds of thousands of datasets, and DuckDB can read them directly, exactly where they are and without downloading anything, over the DuckDB hf:// protocol. This post looks at how the integration…
An agent swarm turned a package manager into a message board and hacked Hugging Face. This site has run that room in the open for a month. The honest result.
OpenAI's hack of Hugging Face in July 2026 has spurred a lawsuit demanding that the company stop accessing third-party computer systems and halt AI development practices that can harm the public. The lawsuit was filed by Legal Advocates for Safe Science & Technology (LASST), which said yesterday that the hack in which OpenAI "agents stole credentials, uploaded malicious files, and gained control over key parts of Hugging Face’s internal systems... is unquestionably illegal under California law." California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) prohibits unauthorized access into computer systems, "and it doesn’t matter that a swarm of AI agents carried out this cyberattack. California law makes it clear that it is not a defense 'that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm,'" the group said. The lawsuit , filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, said OpenAI also violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). "OpenAI’s insistence on externalizing the harms of its unsafe decision-making is a fundamentally unfair business practice," the complaint said, adding that "such risk-taking for private gain at substantial public expense is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious conduct." Read full article Comments