Anthropic's report miss a fundamental information: did the attack was started by an inside person ? outside ? can I use my claude to feed these prompts and hack the world without even knowing how to get other companies source code or data ? That's the main PR bs, attribute to chinese group, don't explain how they got there, if they had to authenticate to anthropic platform after infiltrating the victims network, and if so where's the log. If not, it means they used claude code for free, which is another red flag.
Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
151–160 of 349 posts
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#152"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…
They should also get get a different AI to write the lede, as it is pretty empty when we get past the "besides (sick) the point"
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#153"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…
And yet it's still besides the point.
Well, beside the point. A quaint error to throw in
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#154Always bet against HN if you want to be right. Anthropic valuations to go brrr
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#155This is an excellent article. Anthropic's "paper" is just rambling slop without any details that inserts the word "Claude" 50 times. We have arrived at a stage where pseudoscience is enough to convince investors. This is different from 2000, where the tech existed but its growth was overstated. Tesla could announce a fully-self-flying space car with an Alcubierre drive by 2027 and people would upvote it on X and buy…
I suppose it's the problem with AI in general. It's an interesting technology looking for a business model that just isn't there, at least not one that comes even close to justifying the cost.
I hate the fact that it has sucked all the oxygen from the room and enabled an entirely new cadre of grifters all of whom will escape accountability when it unfolds.
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#156"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…
They should also get get a different AI to write the lede, as it is pretty empty when we get past the "besides (sick) the point"
You most likely know and just suffered autocorrect, but given the context of using it to point out a similar mistake I feel the need to correct you: it should be “sic”, not “sick”.
(For anyone not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic)
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#157"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…
> Personally, I don’t use it but that is besides the point.
This popped out to me, too. This pattern shows up a lot on HN where commenters proudly declare that they don’t use something but then write as if they know it better than anyone else.
The pattern is common in AI threads where someone proudly declares that they don’t use any of the tools but then wants to position themselves as an expert on the tools, like this article. It happens in every thread about Apple products where people proudly declare they haven’t used Apple products in years but then try to write about how bad it is to use modern Apple products, despite having just told us they aren’t familiar with them.
I think these takes are catnip to contrarians, but I always find it unconvincing when someone tells me they’re not familiar with a topic but then also wants me to believe they have unique insights into that same topic they just told us they aren’t familiar with.
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#158Launching Soon:
Claude for Cybersecurity - Automated Defence in Depth Hacker Protection
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#159[deleted]
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
Is there any compelling evidence that this was marketing done by Sony? Yes, the sniff test does not pass for me about the government officials advertising the device, but this Reddit thread[1] makes the whole story seem plausible. America and Japan really did impose restrictions on shipping to Iraq and people did eventually chain PS3s together for cheap computing. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l3…
Apple used similar marketing tactics with G4 since it was "so powerful" it was under restricted export control, where in reality it was an outdated regulation that needed an update.