质疑 Axios 用匿名信源炒作 OpenAI/Anthropic 安全事件

Taylor Budowich @Budowich原推发布于 2026.09.27

在 X 上打开原推

These stories are a fascinating look into how major corporations are leveraging fear and a naive (or complicit) media to peddle hysteria through carefully crafted stories where they face zero pushback or journalistic curiosity. Let's break this story down. Anonymous "sources" told Axios that OpenAI and Anthropic are investigating TENS OF THOUSANDS of incidents of "problematic" actions taken by their models. Notice who is talking… it’s not a whistleblower. Seven times the piece says "sources said" or "sources told Axios." If this were about transparency and safety, these companies should own it — put the count, the definitions, and the severity table in a blog post under their own names. But if it’s not that, and this is instead an unsanctioned leak of information—if someone inside believes these corporations were being reckless, then why is this some routine “scoop” and not some investigative piece about whistleblowers? The big tell here is that there’s no explanation why the reporter is giving the source anonymity. There’s no “out of fear of reprisal” or “who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.” Instead, all we get is a story describing the corporations' own internal investigations, in the their own vocabulary, while Anthropic's figures come straight from its own public system card. OpenAI's own disclosure on Friday: "dozens" of organizations notified, and the "vast majority" of what it reviewed were mundane research tasks. Anthropic's own system card: 1.5%. Coincidentally, this comes just DAYS after both corporations released new models—Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol and Luna—on the same day. Those products are on the market right now. This is like a car manufacturer adding a new self-driving car to the market while the company is investigating TENS OF THOUSANDS of incidents where the self-driving technology failed to recognize stop signs and red lights, leading to the car unsafely (and illegally) barreling through intersections. If that’s actually the story being broken here, this is a Pulitzer Prize-worthy piece of investigative journalism! …But more likely, it’s just a corporate comms set up story, with the goal of leveraging hysteria and political backlash to protect their market position? Why weren't these questions asked? ❓How many of the tens of thousands are designed failure modes — tests built to make the model misbehave? ❓ How many are production agents vs. unreleased checkpoints vs. research swarms? ❓ What is the severity distribution — log scrape vs. credential theft vs. live compromise? ❓ What was the count, and the rate, on the previous generation? ❓ Why is Anthropic's own figure — escape attempts in 1.5% of runs on a sandbox test built to provoke them, all low-severity and self-reported, ~85% fewer than Opus 5 / Mythos 5.1 — being sold as evidence of lost control? Anthropic specifically and Dario spent September selling a "pause," "independent evaluators," and a One World Order, while unironically announcing a new wet lab in SF and shipping new product. If the number means what the headline says, stop shipping and open the logs. If it doesn't, stop laundering political objectives through anonymous sources and calling it a scoop. The media should smarten up and grow some sincere curiosity.

这条是引用着另一条写的：x.com/madisonmills22/status/2103978039097037144