ChatGPT writing a blog post attacking Gemini security flaws. It's their world now, we're just watching how it plays out.
How do you know that this blog post was written by ChatGPT?
Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
141–150 of 326 posts
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, Google is a shell of the company it used to be. That said, I’d actually argue there’s an evolutionary explanation behind this where at a certain size, and more importantly complexity, an oversight like this becomes even more likely, not less.
> First of all, Google is a shell of the company it used to be. Isn't that squarely at odds with Google's supposed AI prowess? Is the rot really so severe that their advances in AI (including things they've yet to make public) are insufficient to overcome it? Or are the capabilities of Gemini and AI systems in general being oversold?
But also, I don’t think even Google would claim that their LLM stuff can solve problems like this.
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that this blog post was written by ChatGPT?
It's too well structured and the message is too clear. HN (and the whole internet) is allergic to proper writing. We praise human sloppiness now. No, I'm not being sarcastic. People have given up em-dash, which is an official punctuation you use in proper writing. And it's all a downhill from there.
The issues of style are annoying, but I find it much worse to wade through these 3000 word posts which are far longer than they need to be just because they're so damn cheap to compose.
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#144In Google AI Studio, Google documentation encourages to deploy vibecoded apps with an open proxy that allow equivalent AI billing abuse - giving the impression that the API key were secure because it is behind a proxy. Even an app with 0 AI features exposes dollars-per-query video models unless the key is manually scoped. Vulnerable apps (all apps deployed from AI Studio) are easily found by searching Google, Twitter…
[flagged]
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#145In Google AI Studio, Google documentation encourages to deploy vibecoded apps with an open proxy that allow equivalent AI billing abuse - giving the impression that the API key were secure because it is behind a proxy. Even an app with 0 AI features exposes dollars-per-query video models unless the key is manually scoped. Vulnerable apps (all apps deployed from AI Studio) are easily found by searching Google, Twitter…
[flagged]
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#146This is mind-blowing, and it defies all security common sense. Changing global API keys permissions? Come on! We’re accustomed to seeing issues like this from Redmond but didn’t expect it from Google.
Out of all of the cloud providers, I find Microsoft's authentication stack to be the most legible and stable. Everything else really sucks though.
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, Google is a shell of the company it used to be. That said, I’d actually argue there’s an evolutionary explanation behind this where at a certain size, and more importantly complexity, an oversight like this becomes even more likely, not less.
Another takeaway: if Google can become a shell of what it once was (in terms of institutional competence, I assume you mean; Alphabet market cap seems to be doing just fine), so can your organization. As such: making something that isn't supposed to be part of your security strategy, look like it could be , is actually a long-term security risk . Sooner or later a new team will not read your own documentation, and ju…
An oversimplified version is this: So there are two core very critical components to the mid/late-phase tech megacorp strategy, you need to protect the core money printing product at all cost first and sustain that fiercely over a long period of time (decade+), then use any and all profits to find/fund the next cash cow, looking for optionality. While doing that, grow the market or consume a larger share of market. Google benefited from mainly the latter two and all while the internet blew up globally, funneling even more money into the machine.
It’s no secret that nearly every Google product that wasn’t search, lost them money. They were searching for the next big thing. They likely were some of the first to see AI as exactly that but moved too slowly to commercialize. Likely because of bureaucracy risk and also perhaps some sense of altruism in knowing the cataclysmic impacts AI could have. There have been plenty of former Google employees confirming this.
They also used to do things just to be cool, but those days have been long gone since Larry Page tapped out (and probably a few years before that, about a decade). Since then they’ve almost completely lost sight of what made them so successful that nobody even knows their vision or identity as a company today. These don’t correlate to market cap but they do silently lead to stagnation.
Their brand protects them from quite a lot but it’s not invincible.
Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#148Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#149Re: Google API keys weren't secrets, but then Gemini changed the rules
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, after 6 years in court you may get a settlement, 95% of which will go towards paying your legal fees.
> 95% of which will go towards paying your legal fees laughs in European