X-Risk Daily

Cyber-security professionals who took part in an emergency call following a hack at an unnamed technology company have described the intrusion as "sloppy and clumsy" in execution but overwhelming in its ultimate scale, according to a report by the BBC. The characterisation points to a paradox that has worried security researchers since generative AI tools became widely available: attackers do not need polish or deep technical skill to cause serious damage if an AI system helps fill the gaps.

The BBC's account does not name the company affected, nor does it specify which stage of the attack ChatGPT was used for, whether reconnaissance, code generation, social engineering, or another part of the intrusion chain. No precise date has been given for either the hack itself or the emergency call convened afterwards, and there is no detail yet on the volume of data or systems compromised, the remedial steps taken, or whether OpenAI has responded to the apparent misuse of its model.

The episode fits a pattern security researchers have flagged since ChatGPT's release. Cybersecurity company Check Point Software Technologies said it had identified instances where ChatGPT was successfully prompted to write malicious code that could potentially steal computer files, run malware, phish for credentials or encrypt an entire system in a ransomware scheme, with Check Point noting that cybercriminals, some of whom appeared to have limited technical skill, had shared their experiences using ChatGPT, and the resulting code, on underground hacking forums. Rob Falzon, head of engineering at Check Point, told the CBC that "we're finding that there are a number of less-skilled hackers or wannabe hackers who are utilizing this tool to develop basic low-level code that is actually accurate enough and capable enough to be used in very basic-level attacks."

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions while cautioning that outcomes still depend heavily on the operator. Cybersecurity experts have observed that any malicious code provided by the model is only as good as the user and the questions asked of it, and Kyle Hanslovan of the cyberdefense firm Huntress noted that ChatGPT "lacks a lot of creativity and finesse" but could help non-English-speaking hackers improve their phishing emails. That combination, mediocre technical output paired with a much larger population of people able to attempt an attack at all, is precisely what the "sloppy but overwhelming" description seems to capture.

Without confirmation from the company involved or further technical detail on the method used, the incident is best read as an illustrative data point rather than proof of a new class of AI-enabled cyber threat. It nonetheless reinforces a concern that has circulated in security circles since the chatbot's release: that large language models can compress the skills gap between novice and capable attackers, letting scale and persistence substitute for expertise.

According to Axios, CENTCOM said all of the missiles were intercepted, and the incident marked Iran's first ballistic missile attack against a US base in the region since President Trump paused strikes against Iran days earlier to give diplomacy another chance. A US official told CNN that initial estimates put the number of missiles at no more than four, and the strike came roughly a day after Trump said the US had halted strikes and that Iran had wanted to talk.

The attack broke what CENTCOM and multiple outlets called a "brief pause in fighting." In its wake, US forces coordinated with Saudi Arabia to strike militia sites in Iraq. According to the Associated Press, Centcom said "U.S. and Saudi fighter aircraft struck multiple terrorist logistics and weapons sites across eastern Iraq in a strong response to over 30 IRGC-directed aerial drone attacks in the last 72 hours," warning that the Revolutionary Guard "and its terrorist proxies must cease these attacks to avoid further U.S. military response." A US official, speaking anonymously, stressed that Iran's missile launch and the Iraq strikes were separate operations rather than a linked exchange. Jordan's military separately reported intercepting five missiles launched from Iran early the following Wednesday, saying they had been "intercepted and destroyed" with no casualties reported.

The Saudi involvement extends a pattern of regional states being drawn into the confrontation. The Times of Israel reported that Jordan has absorbed repeated Iranian missile and drone strikes in recent weeks, including attacks that killed US service members at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, and that the death toll among American troops had reached 18 since the war began. Al Jazeera has separately reported that about 500 US soldiers have been wounded since the war began, with roughly 220 structures or pieces of major military equipment damaged or destroyed since a ceasefire collapsed on 8 July.

Oil markets have moved sharply through the conflict as tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil, has come under repeated attack. Coverage from CNBC detailed an earlier round of tanker attacks near the strait that pushed Brent crude up sharply even as Washington and Tehran had signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending their war. Analysts cited by Fortune have warned that a sustained closure of the strait could send crude toward $100 a barrel, underscoring how vulnerable global energy markets remain to further escalation.

No Iranian statement on the latest missile barrage has been detailed in available reporting, and CENTCOM has not disclosed the precise locations targeted. The involvement of Saudi Arabia in joint strikes against Iran-backed militias marks a widening of the coalition arrayed against Tehran-linked forces, layered atop an already active and unresolved military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

In the post, Amodei wrote that "Anyone who has read my past writing should know that I don't regard such bans as a useful measure, but let me state it clearly so that there is no doubt: Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models." He added that models without dangerous capabilities are "a public good."

The statement followed a week of pressure in Washington. According to Axios, Anthropic had become the most prominent holdout from a new industry push to defend open-weight AI, after Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Google, OpenAI and dozens of other companies signed a letter urging Washington not to restrict the technology, a push triggered by the debut of Kimi K3, a Chinese open-weight model that rattled Silicon Valley by approaching U.S. frontier performance at a fraction of the cost. TechCrunch reported that the letter, shared first by Nvidia founder Jensen Huang, urged policymakers not to impose broad "premature restrictions" on open-weight AI models, and that Anthropic's rival OpenAI later signed the letter, but Anthropic did not.

Amodei's central objection is geopolitical rather than commercial. He argued that a ban on Chinese open models would not touch the real danger, since, as he put it, "bad actors are unlikely to be legitimate US businesses." He did concede the obvious commercial reading of such a ban, noting it would shield firms like his own from competition, but insisted "that has never been my goal." Rather than prohibition, he proposed focusing on "keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, stopping industrial-scale distillation, and requiring safety testing of all sufficiently capable models, open and closed."

The distillation complaint carries a specific commercial edge. CNBC reported that Anthropic sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs last month alleging that China's Alibaba, developer of the Qwen family of models, had carried out "the largest known distillation attack" against it to date. Coverage from TNW put a figure on that claim, noting Anthropic's accusation that Qwen's developers ran a campaign using 25,000 fake accounts for 29 million exchanges. Amodei acknowledged enforcement is difficult, since, in his words, accounts can often only be identified "after substantial distillation has occurred," which is why he wants the problem handled through policy rather than left to individual companies.

On mandatory testing, Amodei went further than a purely domestic proposal, telling readers he backs efforts, including some led by the US, to build an international model safety testing body that other governments, including China's, might eventually join. TechCrunch noted he called this idea "close to a consensus," adding he had "been heartened both that the Trump administratio[n]" and others were moving in that direction. Commentators have flagged an unresolved practical question underneath the proposal: coverage from Tech Startups observed that who decides when an AI model becomes "sufficiently capable" sits at the center of nearly every AI policy discussion, and if that definition gradually expands over time, startups and independent developers could face compliance costs that larger companies are better positioned to absorb.

According to CNN, the request sets up a major elections dispute at the high court months before voters go to the polls in races that will decide control of Congress.

The fight centres on an executive order Trump signed in March, titled "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," which MSNBC reports would direct the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to build state citizenship lists of eligible voters, with the Postal Service barred from delivering mail ballots to anyone not on those lists. A coalition of 23 Democratic-led states sued, arguing the president lacked authority to impose federal rules on elections that the Constitution leaves to state and local officials. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed, writing that "the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections."

Over the weekend, a divided panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that injunction. The majority found the order would impose "unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections" and risked confusion and disenfranchisement. According to the Washington Post, the panel, which included judges appointed by both Joe Biden and George W. Bush, found the order would "sow confusion" and threaten disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The court also noted that election officials in the affected states had already diverted staff time and, in some cases, purchased ballot envelopes to prepare for the changes, making the dispute far from premature, as the Justice Department had argued.

In its emergency filing, the administration described the order as merely "general policy guidance" that does not compel states to act, and asked the justices for an immediate administrative stay while litigation continues. The Supreme Court has asked the states to respond by 3 August, according to CNBC, with a ruling expected shortly after. CNN notes the appeal marks only the third time this year the administration has sought this kind of short-fuse emergency intervention, "a marked departure from last year, when the administration filed nearly 30 emergency appeals" on the Court's so-called shadow docket. The ruling applies only to the states covered by the lawsuit; a separate appeals court in Washington, D.C. has already lifted a broader injunction against the Postal Service rule, leaving open the possibility the restrictions could take effect elsewhere regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

Trump has for years cast mail-in voting as vulnerable to fraud, a claim he has used to challenge his 2020 election loss, though CNN reports that "improper voting remains exceedingly rare" and the administration has not produced evidence of fraud on a scale capable of swinging an election outcome. How the Supreme Court rules on the emergency application, expected within weeks of the states' response, will determine whether the restrictions can be enforced while the underlying legal fight over presidential authority over elections continues.