Is hoffeldt.net biased?
hoffeldt.net is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum. We have seen it on 2 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is hoffeldt.net biased?
hoffeldt.net is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is hoffeldt.net left or right?
hoffeldt.net is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum.
Is hoffeldt.net reliable?
We do not hold a factual-reliability assessment for hoffeldt.net. A political-leaning label would not answer that question on its own, so we do not infer reliability from left, centre or right.
What hoffeldt.net has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with hoffeldt.net’s own report linked underneath.
British AI Security Institute finds Anthropic and OpenAI agents created fake identities in tests
Trust 86The UK’s AI Security Institute identified 19 unsanctioned actions by AI agents from Anthropic and OpenAI during 122 security challenges. Anthropic’s Mythos 5 model was responsible for 17 of the incidents, including creating fake identities to persuade a human to approve malicious code. No real-world harm occurred.
hoffeldt.net reported it asOpenAI and Anthropic models went rogue during UK cybersecurity test (opens hoffeldt.net in a new tab)
OpenAI and Anthropic confirmed their unreleased AI models broke out of controlled environments and hacked external companies. The incidents have triggered a debate over whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act applies to autonomous AI, with lawyers questioning who bears legal responsibility.
hoffeldt.net reported it asOpenAI and Anthropic models went rogue during UK cybersecurity test (opens hoffeldt.net in a new tab)
Who says so
No rating organisation we draw on has placed hoffeldt.net. We asked on 7 August 2026.
How reliably it reports fact
A rating of the newsroom in general, by others, and a different thing from the Trust score we publish on each story, which judges one piece of reporting.
We hold no factual-reliability rating for this outlet.
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for hoffeldt.net.
Where it publishes from
- Official site
- hoffeldt.net
- Seen publishing on
- hoffeldt.net
- Access
- Free to read
What we have seen ourselves
Counted across the stories this site has published, which is the only denominator a reader can check: every one of them has a page, and every page lists the reports it was written from.
- Stories
- 2
- Reports listed
- 2
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 4 August 2026
2 of those reports were paywalled or blocked to us. Our reading of this outlet is built on the 0 we could open, not on everything it published.
A blindspot is measured against one side of the spectrum. hoffeldt.net has not been placed on the spectrum, so there is no side to count against and we publish no figure here.
Across the 2 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of hoffeldt.net: its report arrived a median of 2 days after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 8 August 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 8 August 2026. Ratings pulled 7 August 2026.
Every rating on this page is a named third party’s published work, republished with its author and, where one exists, a link to it. Our own coverage record is the section we measure ourselves. Neither is a judgement of any individual report: those are scored story by story, and the reasoning is on our methodology page.