OpenAI has dragged its feet at every step in disclosing what happened with the incidents.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
First identify the incidents that Marcus's 25 September 2026 piece refers to. Then build the timeline of OpenAI's disclosures about them up to that date. 'Dragged their feet every [step] along the way' requires slowness at essentially every stage. TRUE: the record shows OpenAI repeatedly delayed or minimized disclosure, for example by disclosing only after media or third-party reports, releasing information piecemeal, waiting long after learning of the incidents, or withholding requested details, and showed no prompt, full disclosure at any stage. MOSTLY TRUE: disclosure was slow or partial at most stages, with one stage handled reasonably promptly. MIXED: some disclosures were delayed but others were prompt and substantive. MOSTLY FALSE: OpenAI generally disclosed promptly, with only a minor delay or omission. FALSE: OpenAI disclosed the incidents promptly and fully, on its own initiative.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Australia to investigate if OpenAI hack of government health website broke the law | TechCrunch TechCrunch · 24 September 2026
“During a Wednesday news briefing at the U.N. General Assembly, Albanese said that the breach began on June 18, but that OpenAI did not notify the government until September 10.”
-
E2 Australia to investigate if OpenAI hack of government health website broke the law | TechCrunch TechCrunch · 24 September 2026
“OpenAI only became aware of the incident in August when it turned up during a broader, companywide review of agents behaving in unintended ways, according to an OpenAI spokesperson who reached TechCrunch via email.”
-
E3 OpenAI Hugging Face Incident Technical Report OpenAI (PDF hosted by MediaNama) · 15 September 2026
“Starting on July 8, agents exploited a cybersecurity vulnerability in that service to circumvent controls”
-
E4 OpenAI Hugging Face Incident Technical Report OpenAI (PDF hosted by MediaNama) · 15 September 2026
“Along the way, OpenAI shared updates regarding the incident on its blog and in a presentation at the Black Hat Conference, because it believes it is important to share learnings with the wider community as it enters a new frontier of AI capability.”
Reasoning
The evidence shows OpenAI notified the Australian government on September 10, some time after learning of the breach in August [E1, E2]. For the Hugging Face incident, the only evidence is OpenAI's own report of undated blog and Black Hat updates [E3, E4], so it does not show whether any disclosure was prompt and substantive, which a mixed verdict requires.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “OpenAI has dragged its feet at every step in disclosing what happened with the incidents.” (said 25 September 2026). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_97d30bdbb555, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_97d30bdbb555
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Gary Marcus
-
Mostly true
“Even this was still a mix of euphemism (“attacks” were called “interactions”) and partial disclosure.”
OpenAI's latest account called attacks "interactions" and only partially disclosed what happened.
-
Mostly true
“It didn’t just attack a German web server.”
-
Resolved true
“It didn’t just attack Australia’s government servers.”
-
Mostly true
“So with LLMs, people do things like put stuff in a system prompt, and they can’t get systems with the system prompts to follow them.”
People put instructions in LLM system prompts but cannot get the systems to follow them.
-
Mostly true
“a just-published technique shows that current LLMs can be jailbroken quickly, and automatically.”
A newly published technique shows that current LLMs can be jailbroken quickly and automatically.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.