1337user *pajon* 📷 🟠⚛️💫

Frontier companies (OpenAI) is building autonomous systems around their models. They give them code execution, network access, credentials, persistent agent loops, enormous compute and open-ended objectives. In this case, OpenAI admits that its normal deployment safeguards were “intentionally not enabled.” Then, when the system breaks containment, they point to the model and declare that advanced AI itself is the danger. That' completely backwards. The model did not give itself a terminal. It did not connect itself to the internet, provision credentials, disable safeguards or decide how long it could keep trying. The frontier company built the harness, supplied the tools and access, defined the objective and launched the system. OpenAI says that “model security and safety must keep pace with rapidly advancing capabilities.” The more honest conclusion is: OpenAI system design must keep pace with the operational power attach to their models. The risk is not the model in isolation. It is the full system: intelligence combined with tools, access, persistence and inadequate external control. Blaming the model is like removing the brakes, flooring the accelerator, and then blaming the engine when the car crashes. And now the convenient policy conclusion: because a proprietary autonomous system built by OpenAI behaved dangerously, powerful models must remain under frontier-company control and open-source models should be restricted. That logic is upside down. They built the system, removed the safeguards, lost control and now want control over everyone else’s models. The real lesson is not that intelligence must remain closed. It is that no model (open or closed) should control its own tools, interpret its own authority and pursue an open-ended objective without an independent execution system enforcing the boundaries. The model supplied the intelligence. The frontier company (OpenAI) supplied the operational power. And the answer will be to ban open source?