[flagged]
Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
11–20 of 79 posts
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#12> Ultimately, we aim to make advanced defensive capabilities available to legitimate actors large and small, including those responsible for protecting critical infrastructure, public services, and the digital systems people depend on every day.
Translation: we aim to make defensive capabilities available to US and their vassals so they can protect critical infrastructure, while ensuring countries that are independent can't protect against US attacking their critical infrastructure.
Fortunately, this plan will backfire - the model capability is exaggerated and these "safeguards" don't reliably work.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#13This approach means only a tiny portion of the population will every qualify. Doesn't that make everyone else beholden to those few, who are beholden to OpenAI? Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI…
So who is at fault in your solution, the org who created and shipped the software bug, or the company that discovered it?
I don't see how OpenAI is Ford in your analogy as OpenAI didn't make the software that blew up.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#14This approach means only a tiny portion of the population will every qualify. Doesn't that make everyone else beholden to those few, who are beholden to OpenAI? Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI…
> Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI makes software that endangers people, it should be the same.
That kind of thinking is exactly why LLMs are so censored, because people think OAI should be liable if someone uses chatgpt to commit cyber crimes
How about cyber crimes are already illegal and we just punish whoever uses the new tools to commit crimes instead of holding the tool maker liable
This gets complex if LLMs enable children to commit complex crimes but that's different from just outright restricting the tool for everyone because someone might misuse it
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#15That's a lot of waffle to try and say 'we've got a really scary next model coming too real soon, promise!'
More like they realized how much money they were wasting letting the proles generate slop and vibe code the same CRUD app they rewrote in 5 different JavaScript frameworks a few years back.
The money is in enterprise and government. The consumer market doesn’t remotely pay enough. It’s just the same story with Microsoft purposely making Windows an unusable mess because that’s not where they make their money. It was good to establish themselves, but that market is getting dumped.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#16I completed the "Trusted Access" verification, but it seems to have unlocked nothing in the OpenAI API or Codex models.
Just FYI for others.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#17[flagged]
First, it looks like an "AI psychosis" paper. AI psychosis has been going through armchair philosophers the way crack was going through the low income neighborhoods back in the 80s.
Second, it does not look relevant to the discussions in any way, fashion or form.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#18That's a lot of waffle to try and say 'we've got a really scary next model coming too real soon, promise!'
More like they realized how much money they were wasting letting the proles generate slop and vibe code the same CRUD app they rewrote in 5 different JavaScript frameworks a few years back. The money is in enterprise and government. The consumer market doesn’t remotely pay enough. It’s just the same story with Microsoft purposely making Windows an unusable mess because that’s not where they make their money. It was g…
Wait six months, get the Chinese version.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#19>democratized access >partner with a limited set of organizations for more cyber-permissive models. I get where they're going with this, but still rather hilarious how they had to get a corporate speak expert pull of the mental gymnastics needed for the announcement
It must be representative democracy! And our representative is... Larry Ellison. Oh no.
Re: Trusted access for the next era of cyber defense
#20This approach means only a tiny portion of the population will every qualify. Doesn't that make everyone else beholden to those few, who are beholden to OpenAI? Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI…
> Another solution is to make software makers responsible and liable for the output of their products. It's long been a problem that there is little legal responsibility, but we shouldn't just accept it. If Ford makes exploding cars, they are liable. If OpenAI makes software that endangers people, it should be the same. That kind of thinking is exactly why LLMs are so censored, because people think OAI should be liab…
There's always some wedge issue that means "don't punish the toolkmaker" is not politically viable. You can pick from guns to legal drugs to illegal drugs to all kinds of emotive things.
And once the wedge is in and the concept of maker responsibility is planted, it expands to people's pet issues, obviously.
The actual line of who gets punished just ends up at some equilibrium in the middle. Largely arbitrarily.