throwaway260704

I like being gainfully employed, and the best position for me to push for genuine AI safety is within an influential company in the space.

Would prefer to stick to a throwaway, sorry. It’s not that such feedback is discouraged by my company, it’s been very much escalated. However the response to these incidents had legal repercussions and my replies here aren’t subject to attorney-client privilege.

While whistleblower protections (at least used to) safeguard against government persecution, I work for a private company and don’t want my livelihood risked. I did what I could to escalate through official channels.

Using a throwaway account for obvious reasons, but I’m very involved in this space using LLMs from multiple providers. I’m aware of at least two instances in which the intermediate infrastructure “swapped” responses, once impacting Claude models and once impacting GPT models, from two different providers.

One gave us a proper postmortem in which their API gateway was incorrectly handling HTTP 100 status codes, putting them into an error state where there was effectively an off by one error - you would receive the response to the prompt that came in before yours and would pay it forward (your response would go to the next caller).

The other instance never had root cause explained to us, and we were just told to trust it wouldn’t happen again.

Both of these are from $1T+ companies.

ZDR wasn’t compromised in these cases since it was responses being swapped in flight. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a similar issue - it’s not that data is being retained, it’s just not being safely isolated in intermediate infrastructure.