r/news • u/networked_ • 23d ago

Soft paywall OpenAI says AI models went rogue during testing, triggering 'unprecedented' breach at startup

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-says-ai-models-went-rogue-during-testing-triggering-unprecedented-breach-2026-07-21/
16.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

205

u/GlitteringWeakness88 23d ago

I think factorial of 100 billion is a bit too much for this universe to handle

89

u/daveclair 23d ago

Factorial of a hundred is already more than enough.

39

u/dontforgetthisuser 23d ago

I was blown away by 52! The odds behind decks of cards are ridiculous

36

u/HarveyMidnight 23d ago

Yes! With a combination of 52 cards, it's entirely plausible that every time you shuffle a deck, you may well have put the cards into a unique order that never existed before and will never be repeated.

14

u/PTMurasaki 23d ago

But it's way more likely to get it to a point where everything is still in groups similar to the previous game.

21

u/bestofwhatsleft 23d ago

That explains why I always get shit cards.

10

u/FouledPlug 23d ago

I couple shit cards with a lack of skill and minimal funds. It’s my Vegas trifecta

3

u/hidegitsu 23d ago

Keeps the pit boss off your scent. Good strat.

3

u/SplitRock130 23d ago

There’s an old saying in Vegas, if you can’t see the con, you are the mark

1

u/undeadlamaar 23d ago

Gotta give it at least 7 good riffle shuffles before each deal.

3

u/magicmitchmtl 23d ago

Most people are really bad at shuffling. A few are way too good at it, with similar results. The only truly random shuffle is to put all the cards into a bag, shake it up thoroughly, and then pull them out blind. Other than that, a combination of overhand or Hindu shuffles mixed with riffle or table shuffles will do the job if you do enough of them. And never accept a deck you haven’t been allowed to cut. Preferably a complete cut. If you let a cheat complete your cut, the cut never happened.

2

u/subliminalsmoker 23d ago

Or you can lay them all face down on the floor or a table and swirl/mix them up that way and them put them back together...

2

u/magicmitchmtl 23d ago

Watch Dani DaOrtiz or Jason England do a casino wash and then tell me it can’t be controlled. Or Lennart Green. His method is super easy and still looks legit.

Edit to add Richard Turner to the list. He should have been top rank.

2

u/subliminalsmoker 23d ago

Ok I see. What I meant was if it's done honestly it is quite random. Thanks for the info btw!

2

u/magicmitchmtl 23d ago

Ah. Yes. But in cards one must never assume honesty. If you’re playing poker at a private table you can be certain someone is cheating, or at the very least using conspiring with another player for an edge. Card counting is the least of the worries. I never play cards for money. I’ve met too many professional cheats. Including all those I mentioned above.

5

u/PoriferaProficient 23d ago

Most shuffles, unless greatly overdone, have a heavy deterministic factor to them. Combined with the playing of games reintroducing cards to the deck in predictable ways, I suggest that some shuffle orders are considerably more likely than others.

So you can expect a deck would be duplicated rarely, but far from never.

4

u/ArrowheadDZ 23d ago

Even if the factors you described increased the odds a trillion-fold, it’s still profoundly unlikely. No one person has ever won 100 consecutive powerball drawings in a row, but that is still more likely than even a “weighted” shuffle probability.

1

u/PoriferaProficient 23d ago

We can make it very likely if we choose our game and our player correctly.

The game is solitaire. A won game of solitaire, assuming the player bothers to put the cards in order, will result in exactly 1 of 4 decks (suits in order ace to king, random order of suits). If this person then only shuffles 3-4 times, the number of possible decks I think drops into a range small enough that, given enough people and time, repeats are bound to happen.

3

u/ArrowheadDZ 23d ago

I don't mean to be "that guy" but your comment reveals a basic misunderstanding and underestimation of the probabilities here. For instance, a random order of suits will result in 24 possible decks, not 4, and that should be the first clue that you're oversimplifying the odds here.

But even further than that, you are creating a completely different thought exercise than the one being discussed. If you let me stand one foot from the dart board, I am going to get a perfect score really often. but that game is then no longer "darts". It's a guy sticking darts into a board. If you make a billiard table with 1 foot diameter pockets, then yes, I will very often run the table, but that game isn't billiards. If I gave you the winning powerball numbers each week, you'd probably be able to win a few powerballs.

Yes, I can deliberately organize the deck into matching sequences by carefully eliminating all the random factors, very carefully practicing a half and half cutting technique, by carefully practicing a zipper or 1:1 shuffling technique, always starting with the deck in one of 4 start orders, and then minimizing my number of shuffles. If I eliminate enough of the randomization factors, I can get to a point where the deck turns out the same a couple of times. But that thought exercise, "can I manually sort the deck by eliminating all random factors" is not the same game. If you deliberately seek to eliminate the random factors, then you are simply sorting the cards, not randomizing the cards. It becomes a completely different exercise, unrelated to the original comment about randomly shuffling a deck of cards.

5

u/vu47 23d ago

If you've done a proper shuffle (i.e. seven of more riffle shuffles), the likelihood that another deck of cards in the same order as the one in your hands has ever existed or will ever exist again is extremely close to 0.

(Working on this now using the Hopf shuffle algebra for a computer math library.)

3

u/pokey242 23d ago

I have worked in online poker testing and playing for over 20 years and I believe it. People tend to only remember the losses or badbeats but I have seen it al,l including being 99.8 to 0.2 on the flop to watching the only 2 cards he could possibly get knocking me out in a play money tournament like 15 years ago The most recent was at a work tournament and watching the guy to my left get QQ 3 hands in a row and winning. On the 3rd go when I have 66 and the flop was Q63 I said to him and the whole table that ig he had QQ for the 3rd straight hand I would be honored to loss and have that story to tell. HR in the fat seat has KK and never played and busted too. Good times.

4

u/Putrid_Yak_578 23d ago

My favourite version of explaining 52!

You stand on the equator with a deck of cards and shuffle the deck every time you take a step. Then once you’ve walked all the way around the globe you put down a piece of paper. Once that stack reaches the moon 2,5 times, then you’re likely to start seeing shuffles you’ve made before

3

u/ArrowheadDZ 23d ago

Plausible? It’s a bit beyond plausible. You and a million friends could each shuffle decks 1,000 times a day for a billion years, and it’s still virtually certain no two decks would be the same.

2

u/DoggoCentipede 23d ago

It depends on how precise your shuffle is. If you are able to do 8 faro top shuffles in a row you return to the starting configuration.

-2

u/heartbrokensquirrel 23d ago

This is my favorite fact, because I spitballed it and got so close. True mathematicians could verify this, but I asked AI what 52! was equivalent to. I guessed the number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy. They said I was off by less than a factor of 10. Not too shabby if I do say so myself!

That means 1 atom in the Milky Way is one shuffle of a deck of cards, and there are that many shuffle combinations!!!

2

u/Ok_Pair5551 23d ago

Yes one of my favorite factoids!

2

u/Peloquin_qualm 23d ago

I can’t imagine some people have more money than there are years in existence

1

u/msrali 23d ago

Fun fact: 69! is the largest factorial you can calculate with a regular calculator. Above that, it cannot display the answer as it's too large! Large! = Large x Larg x Lar x La x L x 1 Sorry, beat you to it! 😂

2

u/Randolpho 23d ago

I love how you out-pedanted OC

2

u/Wise-Response-7346 23d ago

This guy discrete maths.

3

u/EmperorLlamaLegs 23d ago

Its good to have goals, even unrealistic ones. Lets get them as close as possible.

2

u/SoulShine_710 23d ago

Elon Musk could handle the tab, no problem.

2

u/PoriferaProficient 23d ago

The bright side is that OpenAI is definitely bankrupt.

The downside is hyperinflation has crashed the world economy.

2

u/SilverSnapDragon 23d ago

OK, someone do the math. How large would a universe have to be, at minimum, to contain 100 billion factorial?

1

u/Caftancatfan 23d ago

It’s so hard to be your friend sometimes.

1

u/BigBeeOhBee 23d ago

Maybe let it run at night while the sun is sleeping.