131–140 of 349 posts
Edited November 14 2025:
Added an additional hyperlink to the full report in the initial section
Corrected an error about the speed of the attack: not "thousands of requests per second" but "thousands of requests, often multiple per second"
Even Claude thinks the report is bullshit. https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1989636669889560897
@RnaudBertrand is a generally pro-Chinese account though - just try searching for "from:RnaudBertrand China" on X. Example tweet: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1988297944794071405
"A report was recently published by an AI-research company called Anthropic. They are the ones who notably created Claude, an AI-assistant for coding. Personally, I don’t use it but that is besides the point." Not sure if the author has tried any other AI-assistants for coding. People who haven't tried coding AI assistant underestimates its capabilities (though unfortunately, those who use them overestimate what they…
Super useful to see it isolate the problem using tcpdump, investigating route tables, etc.
There are lots of use cases that this is useful for, but you need to know its limits and perhaps even more importantly, be able to jump in when you see it’s going down the wrong path.
I think this ‘story’ is an attempt to perhaps outlaw Chinese open weight models in the USA?
I was originally happy to see our current administration go all in on supporting AI development but now I think this whole ‘all in’ thing on “winning AI” is a very dark pattern.
> PoC || GTFO I agree so much with this. And am so sick of AI labs, who genuinely do have access to some really great engineers, putting stuff out that just doesn't pass the smell test. GPT-5's system card was pathetic. Big-talk of Microsoft doing red-teaming in ill-specified ways, entirely unreproducable. All the labs are "pro-research" but they again-and-again release whitepapers and pump headlines without producin…
Microsoft’s quantum lab also made ridiculous claims this year, with no updates or retractions after they were mocked by the community and some even claimed fraud https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/microsoft_majorana_qu... https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-dismisses...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would someone in China not select Claude? If the people at Claude not notice then it’s a pure win. If they do notice, what are they going to do, arrest you? The worst thing they can do is block your account, then you have to make a new one with a newly issued false credit card. Whoopie doo.
> Why would someone in China not select Claude? Because Anthropic doesn't provide services in China? See https://www.anthropic.com/supported-countries
That whole article felt like "Claude is so good Chinese hackers are using it for espionage" marketing fluff tbh
Reminds me of how when the Playstation 2 came out, Sony started planting articles about how it was so powerful that the Iraqi government was buying thousands of them to turn into a supercomputer (including unnamed military officials bringing up Sony marketing points). https://www.wnd.com/2000/12/7640/
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l3hp2i/did_s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an incentive to blame "Chinese/Russian state sponsored actors" because it makes them less culpable than "we got owned by a rando". 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.
That's fair. If the actor (and it's a Chinese state actor here) is what is being questioned as "bullshit" then that should be the discourse in the article and in this thread. Instead the lack of a paper trail from Anthropic seems to be having people questioning the whole event?
It’s allowed in the current day and time to criticize someone else for not providing evidence, even when that evidence would make it easier for the attackers to tune their attack to prevent being identified, and everyone will be like “Yeah, I’m mad, too! Anthropic sucks!” When in the process that only creates friction for the only company that’s spent significant ongoing effort to prevent an AI disasters by trying to be the responsible leader.
I’ve really had my fill of the current climate where people are quick to criticize an easy target just because they can rally anger. Anyone can rally anger. If you must rally anger, it should be against something like hypocrisy, not because you just get mad at things that everyone else hates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI favors attackers initially. Because while it can be used defensively, to preemptively scan for vulns, harden exposed software for cheaper and monitor the networks for intrusion at all times, how many companies are going to start doing that fast enough to counter the cutting edge AGI-enabled attackers probing every piece of their infra for vulns at scale? It's like a very very big fat stack of zero days leaking to…
Defending is much, much harder than attacking for humans, I'd extrapolate that to AI/AGIs. Defender needs to get everything right, attacker needs to get one thing right.
On average, today's systems are much more secure than those from year 2005. Because the known vulns from those days got patched, and methodologies improved enough that they weren't replaced by newer vulns 1:1.
This is what allows defenders to keep up with the attackers long term. My concern is that AGI is the kind of thing that may result in no "long term".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft’s quantum lab also made ridiculous claims this year, with no updates or retractions after they were mocked by the community and some even claimed fraud https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/microsoft_majorana_qu... https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-dismisses...
Tech companies simply don’t feel it is fraud. They feel it is “marketing fiction”