[deleted]
Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
81–90 of 94 posts
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#82That sounds like they caught some minor casual operators. I think it’s a fallacy to conclude that it has limited utility based on that.
The real concern in my mind is use cases aimed at swaying opinions in aggregate via large amounts of real seeming AI actors. Attempts to move the Overton window etc. for that sort of mass psychology patios LLMs are perfect
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#83Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#84I wonder why they closed the accounts rather than set them against a special version of ChatGPT, primed to make hard to notice mistakes and, as they are uncovered, laugh into their faces.
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#85I wonder why they closed the accounts rather than set them against a special version of ChatGPT, primed to make hard to notice mistakes and, as they are uncovered, laugh into their faces.
Yes, special.
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
How Microsoft names threat actors → https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/def... Microsoft shifts to a new threat actor naming taxonomy → https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2023/04/18/mic...
It's amazing to me how there are really only 4 named countries (China, North Korea, Iran, Russia). I guess it's probably just more political and state sponsored than I would have guessed. Or it's not based on prevalence of attack sources and it's dictated more directly by some US policy? For example, you might also expect India because 1) it's a massive country with many people, 2) it's fairly independent and at leas…
Everyone else outsources to NSO?
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine a massive flood of low-quality images relevant to current events (e.g. war), which are obviously fabricated to anyone remotely aware of AI generation. Have you seen photorealistic Midjourney images? I can never distinguish many of them in a million years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/ . They range from practically-indistinguishable to ridiculously wrong, but the more details, the more they lean towards ridiculous. It does make it easier, and who knows about the future. But right now if you generate an image you have to really look and there's a good chance at least something's off. Specific example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1apyrwv/which_vide... .…
Those are Dall-e images, not midjourney. I would hardly call them realistic. In fact, dall-e is trained/instructed not to output realistic images.
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
How Microsoft names threat actors → https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/def... Microsoft shifts to a new threat actor naming taxonomy → https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2023/04/18/mic...
It's amazing to me how there are really only 4 named countries (China, North Korea, Iran, Russia). I guess it's probably just more political and state sponsored than I would have guessed. Or it's not based on prevalence of attack sources and it's dictated more directly by some US policy? For example, you might also expect India because 1) it's a massive country with many people, 2) it's fairly independent and at leas…
[deleted]
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#89China ... Russia ... Iran ... North Korea.
Yawn.
C'mon, tell me how you canned state-affiliated USA accounts and what they were up to.
Re: Disrupting malicious uses of AI by state-affiliated threat actors
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you can kick out anybody because you don't like them (e.g. a minority you don't like the color of)? Or does it work only when somebody is "famously an universally bad" person (al Capone, Hitler etc)?"
As long as you're not kicking them out for reasons surrounding a protected class (race, religious, sexuality etc), and you own the property, then yes? It's your land, you can ask them to leave and if they refuse then they're trespassing.
My point was that just that you shouldn't punish people because you _suspect_ they committed crimes. They either have committed crimes or they didn't.
This whole thing about protected classes is just a workaround to mitigate the excesses of this attitude where you can dispense your own justice in the first place.
Imagine if Al Capone was a black trans woman. Are you suddenly not allowed to not sell her a book about how to run a mob just because she's a protected class (all other things being equal)?
Wouldn't it be simpler if one could just say that we're all equal and it's simply illegal to discriminate in the first place (presumption of innocence etc etc).
This is going to be more and more relevant as people's reputation can be destroyed with a tweet without any proof.