81–90 of 349 posts
Does Anthropic currently have cybersec people able to provide a standard assessment of the kind the community expects? This could be a corporate move as some people claim, but I wonder if the cause is simply that their talents are currently somewhere else and they don’t have the company structure in place to deliver properly in this matter. (If that is the case they are not then free of blame, it’s just a different c…
That whole article felt like "Claude is so good Chinese hackers are using it for espionage" marketing fluff tbh
They'll do stuff like prompt an AI to generate text about bombs, and then say "AI decides completely by itself to become a suicide bomber in shock evil twist to AI behaviour - that's why you need a trusted AI partner like anthropic"
Like come on guys, it's the same generic slop that everyone else generates. Your company doesn't do anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘No true Scotsman’? Also, plenty of folks with no allegiance would love to pit everyone else against each other.
Possibly, but: - Many people in many countries now hate the U.S. and U.S. companies like Anthropic. - In addition, leaders in the U.S. have been lobbied by OpenAI and invest in it which is a direct competitor and is well-represented on HN. - China’s government has vested interest in its own companies’ AI ventures. Given this, I’d hardly say that Anthropic was much of a strong U.S. puppet company, and likely has stron…
What would AGI actually mean for security? Does it heavily favor attackers or defenders? Even LLM, it may not help much in defense but it could teach attackers a lot right? What if employees gave the LLM info during their use that attackers could then get re-fed and study?
The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.
The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.
Do public reports like this one often go deep enough into the weeds to name names, list specific tools and techniques, URLs? I don't doubt of course that reports intended for government agencies or security experts would have those details, but I am not surprised that a "blog post" like this one is lacking details. I just don't see how one goes from "this is lacking public evidence" to "this is likely a political stu…
The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.
Do public reports like this one often go deep enough into the weeds to name names, list specific tools and techniques, URLs? I don't doubt of course that reports intended for government agencies or security experts would have those details, but I am not surprised that a "blog post" like this one is lacking details. I just don't see how one goes from "this is lacking public evidence" to "this is likely a political stu…
It's like the inverse of "nobody got fired for using IBM" -- "nobody can blame you for getting hacked by superspies". So, in the absence of any evidence, it's entirely possible they have no idea who did it and are reaching for the most convenient label.
When I worked at a FAANG with a "world leading" AI lab (now run by a teenage data labeller) as an SRE/sysadmin I was asked to use a modified version of a foundation model which was steered towards infosec stuff. We were asked to try and persuade it to help us hack into a mock printer/dodgy linux box. It helped a little, but it wasn't all that helpful. but in terms of coordination, I can't see how it would be useful.…
[flagged]
We will need a large number of humans to filter and label the data inputs for Blarrble, and another group of humans to test the outputs of Blarrble to fix it when it generate errors and outright nonsense that we can't techsplain and technobabble away to a credulous audience.
Can we make (m|b|tr)illions and solve teenage unemployment before the Blarrble bubble bursts?
So Claude will reject 9 out of 10 prompts I give it and lecture me about safety, but somehow it was used for something genuinely malicious? Someone make this make sense.
LLMs are rather easy to convince. There’s no formal logic embedded in them that provably restricts outputs. The less believable part for me is that people persist long enough and invest enough resources at prompting to do something with an automated agent that doesn’t have potential for massively backfire. Secondly, they claimed to use Anthropic own infrastructure which is silly. There’s no doubt some capacity in Chi…
(granted you have to have direct access to the llm, unlike claude where you just have the frontend, but the point stands. no need to convince whatsoever.)