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

171–180 of 349 posts

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#171

Post by chasing0entropy »

lxgr wrote: post #76
emil-lp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even your own AI model doesn't buy your propaganda Let's not pretend the output of LLMs has any meaningful value when it comes to facts, especially not for recent events.

There are obvious problems with wasting time and sending people off the wrong path, but if an LLM raises a good point, isn't it still a good point?

A broken analog clock will be accurate twice a day despite being of zero use. If someone were to attempt to sell the broken clock as useful because it "accurately returns the time at least twice every day", would Ultimately be causing harm to the consumer.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#172

Post by lmeyerov »

I can believe, so a different question as the attribution is unclear:

For context: A bunch of whitehat teams are using agents to automate both red + blue team cat-and-mouse flows, and quite well, for awhile now. The attack sounded like normal pre-ai methods orchestrated by AI, which is what many commercial red team services already do. Ex: Xbow is #1 on hackerone bug bounty's, meaning live attempts, and works like how the article describes. Ex: we do louie.ai on the AI investigation agent side, 2+ years now, and are able to speed run professional analyst competitions. The field is pretty busy & advanced.

So what I was more curious about is how did they know it wasn't one of the many pentest attack-as-a-service? Xbow is one of many, and their devs would presumably use VPNs. Like did anthropic confirm the attacks with the impacted and were there behavioral tells to show as a specific APT vs the usual , and are they characterizing white hat tester workloads to seperate out their workloads ?

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#173

Post by swores »

itintheory wrote: post #167
swores wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 )

I assume that was the joke. Also, the use of parentheses makes it stand out from the normal bracketed use as an attempt at humor.

If it was a joke it went right over my head

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#174

Post by hello_moto »

hereme888 wrote: post #170

I suspect there are CCP agents both here in Hacker News and everywhere else, trying to undermine the reality of China-sponsored malicious behavior. I'm not a cybersecurity expert, but it doesn't compute to think there would be any specific "hashes" to report if it's an AI-based attack that constantly uses unique code or patterns for everything. Plus, there's nothing surprising about the Chinese stealing and hacking a…

It’s more likely that there are more western VC propaganda here than CCP.

The HN of Paul Graham era had finished.

This is the HN of Sam Altman and Gary Tan era.

Different VC/capitalist mindset

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#176

Post by bsamuels »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
notpublic wrote: post #78

"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 th…

welcome, you're well along the path of realizing that most of the people on this site don't know what they're talking about

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#177

Post by filleduchaos »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
notpublic wrote: post #78

"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 th…

Whether the author uses any AI tools or not (to talk of using Claude specifically) is quite literally completely beside the point, which is readily apparent from actually reading the article versus going into it with your hackles raised ready to "defend AI".

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#179

Post by hello_moto »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #83

Anthropic make a lot of bullshit reports to tickle the investors. They'll do stuff like prompt an AI to generate text about bombs, and then say "AI decides completely by itself to become a suicide bomber in shock evil twist to AI behaviour - that's why you need a trusted AI partner like anthropic" Like come on guys, it's the same generic slop that everyone else generates. Your company doesn't do anything.

Someone reminds me all the time: consider AI as “companions” and “opinions”.

AI (adhd, neurodivergence) entrepreneurs took opinions and made them facts.

It takes certain personalities to lead an AI company.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#180

Post by gishh »

snowwrestler wrote: post #163
JKCalhoun wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There’s a big jump between “the attack came from China” and “the attack was sponsored by the Chinese government.” People generally make this jump in one of three ways. 1) Just a general assumption that all bad stuff from China must be state-sponsored because it’s generally a top-down govt-controlled society. This is not accurate and not really actionable for anyone in the U.S. 2) The attack produced evidence that ali…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN