341–350 of 382 posts
"I feel like making ’90s-style t-shirts with ‘fix this code’ on the front and ‘this shirt is a munition’ on the back.” I'd buy that shirt.
this is basically trying to enforce security-by-obscurity, which is a terrible idea all around. it's just a model. the security issues still exist and are exploitable. and after staking the economy on AI, you can't really put a cap on intelligence. if models are not allowed to be better than Opus 4.8, then the whole investment structure is about to unravel. why invest billions and billions into AI if returns are arti…
As an European, I really don't get where this strategy wants to take the USA to. It's pretty clear everyone is getting scared about changes like this that happen overnight, without clear reason and completely unpredictable. Business requires a stable environment, and Trump is making everything in his power to disrupt business stability. Ultimately, I see the rest of the world (especially Europe) relying less and less…
As an European, I really don't get where this strategy wants to take the USA to. It's pretty clear everyone is getting scared about changes like this that happen overnight, without clear reason and completely unpredictable. Business requires a stable environment, and Trump is making everything in his power to disrupt business stability. Ultimately, I see the rest of the world (especially Europe) relying less and less…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we retire the “seatbelts are useless because they can’t prevent every loss of life” approach to risk mitigation please? If the acceptance criteria is “would prevent every single past instance and every imaginable future instance”, then yes, no mitigation is every sufficient to address any problem in the world, so we might as well give up. But I don’t think that’s the right lens to use.
That depends on whether it's a issue of accidents or a "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once" issue.
So the problem is not Fable's ability to exploit, but that they don't want people to have access to it's ability to patch vulnerabilties? Wow.
You can't really have one without the other..
But, so... the solution people think is limiting people's ability to discover and patch vulnerabilities, and hoping the black hats won't find a way anyway? This does not seem like a sustainable or feasible plan. It does, to be honest, make me wonder how much of the government's motivation is ensuring that they have access to vulnerabilities that remain unpatched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many, many years ago I was asked to implement a filter like that for usernames. I said right away that it wasn't going to work well, but I did implement it. Next internal build, the CEO can't create an account. With his real name. It worked exactly to spec; I added a debug print and showed everyone the "bad word" it tripped on. The idea was promptly rethought. I feel like the AI did you a favour here.
Now I'm trying to figure out which word that would be, but yeah. That reminds me of a bug I fixed where my bosses boss found it, we did everything, my boss at the time forced us to deploy anything and call it fixed. Then someone else saw it half a year later, I finally figured out the root cause and fixed it (localStorage vs sessionStorage) and my boss was acting like he didn't know what I was talking about, but I co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same way you get people to do bad stuff as well. Make the task small enough so that the moral curvature of the topology is flat and even though they know it is a not-good part of a larger bad part they just shrug. Look at all the wonderful people we know who are working at Amazon and Meta? Corporatism has already jailbroken society.
I don't think people working at Amazon "know that it is a part of a larger bad", it's one of the most trusted American institutions. https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/why-everyone-loves-amazon
this is basically trying to enforce security-by-obscurity, which is a terrible idea all around. it's just a model. the security issues still exist and are exploitable. and after staking the economy on AI, you can't really put a cap on intelligence. if models are not allowed to be better than Opus 4.8, then the whole investment structure is about to unravel. why invest billions and billions into AI if returns are arti…
Wow, it's starting to seem like the choice is essentially between an intelligence cap that pops the bubble, and an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable cybersecurity environment with major hacks and exploits left and right.
The same models that can find these exploits can also help fix them, thus everyone will be better off.
Relying on the fact that nobody has found a security issue with a piece of software yet is not a great way to ensure safety