hashstring
Yes, saying there’s a big bug increases exposure, but also makes people prepared to patch. So it’s a trade-off.
No, when there’s no info provided regarding what the bug is, then it doesn’t make finding the bug more likely for any independent researcher.
Yes, increased exposure does increase the overall likelihood. Duh.
However, all this was not the case, the point here is: someone broke the embargo, and that messed the disclosure up, and that caused this mess.
Go find another straw man to practice mental gymnastics on. I’m not your guy.
Let me tell you this: - I never said VR & ED was impossible. I never said that a passenger flying a 747 was impossible either. - I said, a rumour of something so generic as “a bug exists somewhere”, does absolutely nothing for the ability to pull something off. Not before, and not now.
However, that is exactly what you wrote. Then, in your previous comment, you are changing what you said and now you’re fighting a straw man.
Goodbye dude, I’m not spending more cycles on this. Go find some bugs lol.
> “[…] even if nobody leaked anything, and the only thing publicly known was the existence of the bugs, people would anyway have been able to find them independently.”
I never said it’s impossible for LLMs to assist or drive VR and exploit development. It’s just utter nonsense that “knowing that a bug exists” does anything meaningful for finding it independently, unless that bug contains signal.
Which it only does if an embargo is broken, which was the case here.
> Exercise for the reader. Well, if you are so confident, go do it. Share your results. I bet you won’t find a thing.
I can say with high confidence that Nginx, Apache and IIS have a critical security vulnerability hidden somewhere in their codebase right now.
Please provide the prompt that uncovers it. Apparently knowing about the existence of bugs is enough nowadays right?
I’ll wait.
Chainguard was definitely not in the right here.
Turns out that money never was a good proxy for the public good, or even the ‘good’ of paying users. The goal has never been maximizing UX, the goal always was squeezing profits.
End-users not voting with their feet is misrepresenting the issue, it’s a symptom of end-users being actively lied to during campaigns (I think the euphemism for that is “lobby groups”).
Why? Because politicians care about being re-elected and their approval rates, and finance has proved to be an unnaturally large factor in that equation.
How does this work? Calif works with OAI on Patch the Planet program. Calif reports the finding to PHP. OAI ‘independently’ reports it too, on the same day. I suppose Calif did communicate with OAI about said findings, or is this not how Patch the Planet operates? It seems extremely coincidental.
Reach the people, but make clear that there is an authoritative source that is ~not~ less rented.
Letting bigots and racists continue to express these views is extremely problematic.
This is a more valuable insight/signal than a CVE enumeration, especially given that Linux CVEs are literally assigned to any bugfix (as others explained as well).
Firearms are an application of more general techniques like combustion, which your car is (probably) using too.
We could definitely draw lines at points where it makes most sense.
AI to detect melanomas is a completely different application than AI for autonomous warfare.
Well, I’m looking forward of Meta going down. Now that would benefit the Internet.
After that, I think the fact that these glasses are allowed in the first place creates a problem that Meta as a platform cannot fix, because Meta is just one of the many many places where videos can be posted.
Misleading communication is what I am describing, that is a subset of all communications.
People often assume they are not because they can ask the same query to the same model and get differences in output, but wrongly conclude that this is some inherent LLM trait, instead of non-determinism added on top of it because of implementational choices that were made.
Also, the “0 ports opened” marketing is misleading. It still binds to a port and then also lets people access your resources over it.
I dislike that Cloudflare Engineering has become more… marketingy as of late. Also with their Cloudflare OS misnomer. Their products used to make more sense, what happened?
However, Dario’s plan is BY FAR the least compelling and non-sensical. I think a constructive discussion should identify issues with current proposals so that we can instead develop something valuable.
Dario’s plan is bad because:
1. It’s blatant window-dressing to monopolize and concentrate power in a field in which, currently, no company has established moat and there is no practical path to create that. Anthropic knows that and doesn’t like that. That is exactly what his incentives are and proposals from him should be viewed through this lens. Just like how SHELL has a clear conflict of interest with progressive proposals on CLIMATE POLICY.
2. It clearly is ineffective in achieving the presented goal of ‘moral alignment’. Chinese labs are open weighting and are 3-6 months behind US labs. What levers does the US currently have to align on this? The answer should be in international diplomacy, but given that Jared Kushner was the US delegate sent to talk about NUCLEAR issues in Iran, one should draw the conclusion that this lever is broken. Any meaningful repair work (which is non-trivial and will take a long time anyway), cannot even start within 2 years.
3. Anthropic is and has long been working with the Department of War on killing machines. Their machines were and are being used in the US war with Iran. This is only shocking to people that read about their news stunt that made Anthropic seem so distinguished. This is what exalted Dario to become the pop-posterboy of an “ethical AI” company. Objectively, guidance based on his moral compass should be challenged and this media campaign should not cloud that. Again, this relates to the earlier point I made that Dario’s for-profit company incentives being fundamentally misaligned with the public interest.
4. Your government, the United States, is authoritarian and that is the biggest threat to any altruistic “moral alignment” endeavours happening there.
Yet, Dario misidentified the state of the system that his company exists and operates within when he wrote:
> “The US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments”
A valuable discussion can start when “the US and other” is moved to the part after “coordinate with”.
I meant to say when they launched their promo [1] for Siri AI. Can’t find a non IG link, sorry.
I recommend you to write a message to OAI support, maybe it helps with changing it.