CBP's declaration (which the article links to) has more details. They're arguing that they can't currently issue refunds, and they can't even currently stop IEEPA duties from being charged on future liquidations, because of software limitations.

They say they're going to comply with the order, but they want 45 days to develop the required software changes and processes.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193...

Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they were being litigated, because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them.

For instance:

> In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision because of liquidation. But that asserted harm is nonexistent here because defendants have made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that they will not object to the Court ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful. Because defendants’ representations make clear that liquidation will not interfere with the availability of refunds after a final decision, plaintiffs cannot be irreparably harmed by liquidation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.172...

Unsettling, yes, but not strange at all.

Given that OpenAI is working with and doing business with the US military, it makes perfect sense that they would try to normalize militaristic usage of their technologies. Everybody already knows they're doing it, so now they just need to keep talking about it as something increasingly normal. Promoting usages that are only sort of military is a way of soft-pedaling this change.

If something is banal enough to be used as an ordinary example in a press release, then obviously anybody opposed to it must be an out-of-touch weirdo, right?

That doesn't mean there's a problem with the code, only with the documentation. So the article is wrong to call it a "real bug". At most it's poor code style that could theoretically lead to a bug in the future.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a function throwing an exception when it receives invalid input. The math.sqrt function isn't buggy because it fails if you pass it a negative argument.