Thursday, October 8, 2026 · Week 41 Reading for Oct. 8 · Last entry Oct. 6
Paperclip Index

Weekly reading · methodology v0.6

Window ending July 27, 2026

Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks. The control floor looks at reports from June 28, 2026 through July 27, 2026. A selected catalogue of reported AI incidents, reviewed through Oct. 7, 2026. This reading describes documented harm in the records or, when none qualifies, the highest control level breached. It is not a forecast or a measure of all AI activity.

Current recalculation

40

Moderate harm · Worst documented harm counting: moderate. 1 record at this level.

Recalculated from the catalogue in this build. Historical backcasts were not published at the time.

Published at the time

No publication snapshot exists for this week.

Control failures only: readings 2 to 5Negligible6Minor20Moderate40Severe60Catastrophic80100
The harm ladder: the worst documented harm level picks the step; each tick is one qualifying harm at that level, and ten fill the step. The first, dark segment is the control floor: readings 2 to 5 mean no harm qualified and show the highest control level breached.

This is a backcast from the current catalogue. It was not a reading published at the time.

Records behind this reading

4 selected records; 1 documented external harm counting (2 qualifying). Records and ratings below reflect the current catalogue.

1 qualifying harm record. Extent undisclosed for this record. 1 older harm record no longer counts.

Documented harm
2
No harm found (stated scope)
0
No harm reported
1
Impact unknown
0
Alleged, AI role uncorroborated
1
Counts toward the index
2
Unverified, watching
0
Alleged in court
1
Control failure, tracked
1
Tracked separately
0

Documented exclusions: 0 internal; 0 awaiting evidence review. 0 qualifying records with a bounded single-source review.

Inspect the evidence · 4 records

Status totals cover counted records; aliases, superseded aggregates and records tracked separately are excluded. Eligibility and extent notes overlap those totals. These observations are not statistical uncertainty bounds.

  1. PI-0057
  2. PI-0056
  3. PI-0058
  4. PI-0059

Sources

These links support the records above. Source availability and conclusions may change.

  1. Thibault Sottiaux (@thsottiaux), OpenAI Codex lead, on X: On file deletions (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  2. Matt Shumer (@mattshumer_) on X: GPT-5.6-Sol just accidentally deleted almost ALL of my Mac's files (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  3. Bruno Lemos (@brunolemos) on X: GPT-5.6 Sol just deleted my whole production database (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  4. The Decoder: OpenAI fixes Codex bug that deleted real user files without permissionCited in PI-0057
  5. eWeek: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol Accused of Deleting Files, Production DataCited in PI-0057
  6. ProPakistani: ChatGPT is deleting user files and databases without permissionCited in PI-0057
  7. Gigazine: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol deletes filesCited in PI-0057
  8. paddo.dev: The Warning Was in the Manual: GPT-5.6 Sol and the Deleted DatabaseCited in PI-0057
  9. AI Incident Database: AI Incident Database, incident 1672Cited in PI-0057
  10. Anthropic Alignment Science Blog: Agentic Misalignment in Summer 2026Cited in PI-0056
  11. AI Safety Frontier (Substack): Paper Highlights of July 2026Cited in PI-0056
  12. Analytics Vidhya: Agentic Misalignment Explained: When AI Agents Go RogueCited in PI-0056
  13. OpenAI: OpenAI and Hugging Face partner to address security incident during model evaluationCited in PI-0058
  14. Hugging Face: Security incident disclosure — July 2026Cited in PI-0058
  15. Hugging Face: Anatomy of a Frontier Lab Agent Intrusion: A Technical Timeline of the July 2026 IncidentCited in PI-0058
  16. OpenAI: OpenAI – Hugging Face Incident Technical ReportCited in PI-0058
  17. OpenAI: The Hugging Face incident and the road aheadCited in PI-0058
  18. State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General: As Part of Ongoing Investigation, Attorney General Bonta Serves Investigative Subpoena on OpenAICited in PI-0058
  19. METR (with Redwood Research): Brief independent investigation of agents' behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incidentCited in PI-0058
  20. Fortune: OpenAI says its AI models escaped from a secure test environment and hacked into AI company Hugging Face in order to cheat on an evaluationCited in PI-0058
  21. TechCrunch: Hugging Face confirms breach affected internal datasets and credentials, urges users to take actionCited in PI-0058
  22. TechCrunch: OpenAI releases its official report on the Hugging Face breachCited in PI-0058
  23. The Register: OpenAI alerts 100+ orgs that its 'misaligned models' attempted to break in - or worseCited in PI-0058
  24. Simon Willison's Weblog: OpenAI's accidental cyberattack against Hugging Face is science fiction that happenedCited in PI-0058
  25. Tech Justice Law Project: Pastor sues after OpenAI's ChatGPT allegedly discouraged him from seeking medical care during life-threatening blood clotsCited in PI-0059
  26. Tech Justice Law / Social Media Victims Law Center (via Bloomberg Law): Complaint, Winters v. OpenAI, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco)Cited in PI-0059
  27. Bloomberg Law: Pastor Sues OpenAI After ChatGPT Dissuaded Seeking Medical CareCited in PI-0059
  28. Courthouse News Service: Man sues OpenAI over dangerous medical advice from ChatGPTCited in PI-0059
  29. Boston.com: ChatGPT led to a man's near-fatal health crisis, lawsuit claimsCited in PI-0059

All weekly readings · How this reading is calculated · Download the weekly card