Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

djnn.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 349 posts

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#141

Post by cosmosgenius »

notpublic wrote: post #123
thoroughburro wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author’s arguments explicitly don’t dispute plausibility. It accurately states that mere plausibility is a misleading basis for this report, but that the report provides nothing but plausibility, and thus is of low quality and dubious motivation. Anthropic’s lack of any evidence for their claims doesn’t require any position on AI agent capability at all. Think better.

What is the proper way to disclose evidence for this class of hacking?

Starting with an isolated POC showing the vector being exploited would help. I like gooogle project zero mainly for this.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#142

Post by tomrod »

y-curious wrote: post #130
jgalt212 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now run by a teenage data labeller sick burn

I don’t know anything about him, but if he is running a department at Meta, he as at the very least a political genius and a teenage data labeller

It's a simple heuristic that will save a lot of time: something that seems too good to be true usually is.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#143

Post by dboreham »

criemen wrote: post #120
Aeolun wrote: post #118

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

Can confirm Claude doesn't even work in Hong Kong. That said I fired up my VPN and...then it did work.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#144

Post by abhis3798 »

torben-friis wrote: post #4

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…

I am sure they do. This is a talk they gave on using AI to tackle security problems. https://youtu.be/JRvQGRqMazA?si=euwRGML-unsm59ZU

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#146

Post by cmiles74 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #63
prinny_ wrote: post #20

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 report itself reads like a humblebrag at best, marketing materials at worst. I have to agree with the OP: taking this report at face value requires that you trust Anthropic, a lot.

Their August threat intelligence report struck similar chords.

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/b2a76c6f6992465c09a6f2fce282f6...

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#148

Post by ungreased0675 »

AyanamiKaine wrote: post #9

Its seems that various LLM companies try to fear monger. Saying how dangerous it is to use them in "certain ways". With the possible intention to lobby for legislation. But what is the big game here? Is it all about creating gates to keep out other LLM companies getting market share? (Only our model is safe to use) Or how sincere are the concerncs regarding LLMs?

Outlaw local LLMs is one possibility.

Another possibility could be complex regulations that are difficult for smaller companies to comply with, giving larger companies an advantage.

Post reply on HN