Image source, Getty Images By Joe Tidy Cyber correspondent, BBC World Service Published 5 hours ago This week the tech world was gripped by a story that has it all - and which started like a sci-fi thriller.
Hugging Face - a kind of app store for artificial intelligence tools - announced on 16 July it had been hacked by a cyber criminal wielding enormously powerful AI.
The bombshell announcement was full of scary, highly technical terms: "a swarm of sandboxes", "agentic attacker", and "self-migrating command and control".
Hugging Face said the hack was different from anything it had handled before because it was done at superhuman speed by an AI with little or no human guidance.
The AI performed 17,000 actions in less than two days, successfully breaching the large wealthy tech company to steal secrets.
It left the tech world in shock. But who was responsible for this attack?
Hugging Face researchers guessed the mysterious attackers had used one of the big AI models but they had no idea who or where the criminals were.
The perplexed company contacted the police and investigations commenced.
Commentators and analysts took to their podcasts and social media accounts to guess which cyber crime group or nation state hacker might be behind it.
Then on Wednesday, nearly a week after Hugging Face raised the alarm, the true culprit was unmasked.
The Scooby-Doo-style reveal was made even more bizarre - and worrying - because OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own, without permission.
The firm said it all went down during a test of its tech's hacking skills.
Two new versions of ChatGPT, designed to be master hackers, broke out of a supposedly secure test environment and gained access to the internet.
They then attacked Hugging Face to get access to the information to help them ace their exam.
OpenAI issued a press release explaining what had happened and said it was "partnering with Hugging Face" to address the security incident and share lessons learned.
Since then, there has been fierce debate about the incident.
Was it truly a stark warning about the future of AI? Or was it a publicity stunt by OpenAI to show off how powerful their models are?
It's the kind of scare marketing AI companies have been accused of for years and, since the much discussed launch of Anthropic's Mythos model, cyber-security prowess has been a focal point.
One of the top comments on OpenAI boss Sam Altman's X post about the incident summarises this scepticism: "If y'all can't understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don't know what to tell you."
Figure caption, Watch: Why is the OpenAI cyber-attack so alarming?
Cyber-security consultant Daniel Card said sarcastically on LinkedIn: "Isn't it lucky [that] out of the millions of sites that got pwn3d [hacked], OpenAI managed to pwn someone who also could benefit from the marketing exposure…"
For some, the story is more conspiracy drama than sci-fi thriller.
The message is: "Aren't my AI tools really powerful? Buy them so you can protect yourself from other people's AI attacks."
We can't know the truth, but the opposing point of view posed by other commentators is just as dramatic. Is this a sign that OpenAI made a potentially dangerous error in judgement and planning?
I've covered lots of AI stories, including the fears around Anthropic's Mythos model.
My inbox is now chock full of cyber-securit…