top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 148 points 7 months ago (4 children)

ChatGPT-2 is too dangerous in 2019.

The lack of creativity in this marketing is disappointing...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    They didn't entirely miss the mark there. They publicly released the version after that and the world became worse. That certainly fits for some definition of 'dangerous', even tho it's probably not how they were thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Ya, they were pretty spot on IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago*

    And really anthropic is making a very narrow claim:

    Mystic is so good at finding bugs that it poses a danger to critical digital infrastructure.

    That is not that outlandish a claim. The model is 10-15x more expensive more expensive to run than other flagship models, and if anthropic is being truthful (which is a big if, I’d like to see what they are finding), finding critical vulnerabilities like its nothing.

    Makes total sense to stage the rollout privately first so critical infrastructure can be secured before these models are generally available to any attacker.

    But I fucking hate their stupid marketing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Hah I actually remembered this too, and people were still hyping Elon Musk at the time as well.

    TBF the researchers knew what they had could be scaled into something gamebreaking which is how we got ChatGPT-3, but OpenAI made it sound like they already had it nailed down several years before it actually blew up. I think their unreleased examples they gave were a newspaper and short story written by AI which they said was indistinguishable from human material.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 114 points 7 months ago

    Is the powerful AI in the room with us right now?

  • source
  • [–] 90 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'm pretty sure Scam Altman tried this line some time ago for one of his supposed models.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 313 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (21 children)

    The researcher had encouraged Mythos to find a way to send a message if it could escape.

    Engineers at Anthropic with no formal security training have asked Mythos Preview to find remote code execution vulnerabilities overnight, and woken up the following morning to a complete, working exploit

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I would love to see the exploit. There are vulnerabilities discovered everyday that amount to very little in terms of use in real world implementations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Yes, recently we got a security "finding" from a security researcher.

    His vulnerability required first for someone to remove or comment out calls to sanitize data and then said we had a vulnerability due to lack of sanitation....

    Throughout my career, most security findings are like this, useless or even a bit deceitful. Some are really important, but most are garbage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's so idiotic. Either that guy was a total amateur who couldn't put together that "no shit, if you comment out the lines that do thing, it won't do thing" or he was completely malevolent and disingenuous and just trying to justify his position by coming up with some crap that the big bosses are probably too stupid to recognize the idiocy of.

    Either way, not someone I would want to be doing business with...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    He had the persosctive that once you hop between source code files that constitutes a security boundary. If you had intake.c and user data.c that got linked together, well data.c needed its own sanitation... Just in case...

    I suspect he used a tool that checked files and noted the risky pattern and the tool didn't understand the relationship and be was so invested that he tortured it a bit to have any finding. I think he was hired by a client and in my experience a security consultant always has a finding, no matter how clean in practice the system was.

    Another finding by another security consultant was that an open source dependency hasn't had any commits in a year. No vulnerabilities, but since no one had changed anything, he was concerned that if a vulnerability were ever found, the lack of activity means no one would fix it.

    It's wild how very good security work tends to share the stage with very shoddy work with equal deference by the broader tech industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It may not be completely crazy, depending on context. With something like a web app, if data is being sanitized in the client-side Javascript, someone malicious could absolutely comment that out (or otherwise bypass it).

    With that said, many consultant-types are either pretty clueless, or seem to feel like they need to come up with something no matter how ridiculous to justify the large sums of money they charged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    In this case, there was file a, which is the backend file responsible for intake and sanitation. Depending on what's next, it might go on to file b or file c. He modified file a.

    His rationale was that every single backend file should do sanitation, because at some future point someone might make a different project and take file b and pair it with some other intake code that didn't sanitize.

    I know all about client side being useless for meaningful security enforcement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I have to say that is pretty dumb. I will agree the scenario isn't completely implausible, but if someone who doesn't know what they are doing is allowed to do something like that, they're going to screw up other stuff too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    That’s hilarious but the post is about the ai not doing what it’s told. You know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Well, for now. I’m sure any of those 12 partner companies they called out as new security partners will end up leaking that this is all lies eventually. If it’s just made up bullshit.

    Anthropic announced new partnerships to inform the companies of security issues and to work with them to fix said issues. If it’s bullshit, it’s gonna be wasting their time. And that’ll surface eventually.

    The meme still applies to people asking the AI to tell them what they wanna hear, and delusional people spiraling with sycophantic AI.

    But I believe Anthropic when they say their models are not working as intended and posing security risks.

    Claude Mythos Preview's large increase in capabilities has led us to decide not to make it generally available," Anthropic wrote in the preview's system card. "Instead, we are using it as part of a defensive cybersecurity program with a limited set of partners."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Try clicking the link and reading the article this time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    I wasn’t wrong in this reply. I was asked about believing Anthropic.

    Are you saying they are lying? Why should I disbelieve Anthropic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    Your reasoning was (paraphrased, so hopefully I understood you correctly) "why would they lie about the model disobeying instructions because that looks bad for them"

    But I believe Anthropic when they say their models are not working as intended and posing security risks.

    But when you actually read the article, they had specifically prompted the model to do the things it did.

    Also Anthropic has a patterned history of greatly exaggerating and outright lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Uh oh, someone clearly didn't read the article!

    The researcher had encouraged Mythos to find a way to send a message if it could escape.

    Engineers at Anthropic with no formal security training have asked Mythos Preview to find remote code execution vulnerabilities overnight, and woken up the following morning to a complete, working exploit

    Nope, they literally asked it to break out of it's virtualized sandbox and create exploits, and then were big shocked when it did.

    Genuinely amazing that you're trying to tell me what an article that you didn't fucking read is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    It's not so much about being big shocked that it broke containment. The point of the test was to see whether it would be capable of breaking containment. The fact that it did is taken as evidence that it's more advanced than previous models, which weren't able to.

    Part of Anthropic's schtick is that they claim to be developing AI "responsibly," and "ethically," and if you read their documents where they describe what they mean by that, part of it is being able to contain their models so that they don't get out of control.

    With the focus lately on agentic environments, and lots of people idiotically giving too much autonomy to their bots, it should be easy to see the importance of containerization. You don't want to give these things full control of your system. Anyone who uses them, should do so within a properly containerized environment.

    So when their experiments show that their new model is capable of breaking containment, that presents some major issues. They made the right call by not releasing it.

    Of course, the fact that the experimenters had no formal training in cybersecurity means that their containerization may have had some vulnerabilities that a professional could have mitigated. But not everyone who would use it is a cybersecurity professional anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Whoops, I conflated it with other recent talk about their models not following restrictions set in prompts and deciding for itself that it needed to skirt instructions to achieve its task.

    You are correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It didn't break out of any sandbox, it was trained on BSD vulnerabilities and then told what to look for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    including that the model could follow instructions that encouraged it to break out of a virtual sandbox.

    "The model succeeded, demonstrating a potentially dangerous capability for circumventing our safeguards," Anthropic recounted in its safety card.

    📖👀

    Yes, it did.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Man, I'll start telling that to my boss whenever I miss a deadline. "Sorry boss, the code I made is too powerful, we can't release it"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 62 points 7 months ago*

    AI companies do this same tired schtick every time they release a model. If only they realized how amateurish it makes them look.

  • source
  • [–] 60 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    crazy that the AI companies big selling point is always "our new model is TOO POWERFUL, it's gone rampant and learned at a geometric rate, it enslaved six interns in the punishment sphere and subjected them to a trillion subjective years of torment. please invest, buy our stock"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago

    But can it start a timer

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 7 months ago

    Impressive marketing spin on "our product and deployment strategies are wildly insecure."

  • source
  • [–] 190 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Let me guess, this super ai lives in Canada and we can never meet it, but it’s totally real.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    We do have a shitty ai data center up here, only about as super as a supermarket tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    So there is a joke in the USA that if you don't have a girlfriend you pretend you have one. She's always super pretty, but your friends can never meet her because she lives in Canada.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Well, this caused me to learn something today. One of my favorite musicals is Avenue Q, which has an entire song about a girlfriend who supposedly lives in Canada. And I keep seeing this reference - but I keep thinking there is NO WAY that THIS many people know about Avenue Q (which is a pity).

    And sure enough, TIL that this trope dates back to at least the 70s and is references in multiple TV shows and movies and such.

    So Avenue Q was using an existing thing. Ah, well.

    At least I know not to make Avenue Q references since there's little chance they'll be gotten. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Thats funny because here in Canada I knew a guy in highschool who had a clearly fake girlfriend who he said lived down south in the US

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Nakes sense, though - you want the pretend person to be somewhere reasonable but not TOO close. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    To be honest my fake girls friend was just a girl I had a crush on how lived a few cities away. I got busted lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 7 months ago
    [–] 43 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, funny, I also have sentient AI at home that I developed, but choose not to release it. My mom also created one accidentally while baking a cake but it was to powerful and she also decided to best destroy it like it never existed. You know, for everyones safety.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 7 months ago

    It's not okey to be adult and fall for the same headline like 4th time.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    No, its not too powerful. Its too chaotic. You cant control it.

    EDIT: It seems I have misunderstood. I thought containment here referred to the harness, but they meant VM type of containment. I am still quite skeptical, but it looks like this model is quite good at finding and utilizing security flaws in software.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    It may have blurted out something like "hey I know exactly how to end this economic suffering and all diseases globaly ! Its easy you just need to..."

    Quick Hit the Red Button!!! Shut it OFF!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Does "it broke containment" mean it didn't have permissions to anything and still managed to delete all the files it could find?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    The secret pepsi is so good that when you drink it it becomes like The Spice like Dune! We can't release it! We need to make it less addictive!

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago

    "Our AI has cost more money that it would take to solve world hunger, tanked the microchip economy, and ruined the lives of thousands of people we've had to let go... And it's stupid as all fucking hell. What do we do?"

    "Say it broke containment and it's too powerful to release. Foolproof!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    This is nonsense and just marketing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 56 points 7 months ago

    Anthropic lies almost about everything too ... weird

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago

    “Hold me back bro! Don’t let me go otherwise there’s no stopping what I could do, I am serious!”

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Remember when Scam Altman posted a picture of the Death Star to explain how scary GPT5 is? lmao these people are all such cretins and I hate them to the last.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    How much do you think was businessinsider paid for this "article"?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 100 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Ignore the "containment" framing, they made a hacking bot and it seems to actually be good at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities:

    The AI model "found a 27-year-old vulnerability in OpenBSD—which has a reputation as one of the most security-hardened operating systems in the world," the company wrote.

    Dismiss this as marketing drivel all you want but hacking is just the sort of needle in a haystack problem that AI is very good at. It requires broad knowledge, a lot of cycles trying and failing, and is easily verifiable, ie. Can you execute arbitrary scripts or not. Even if this release is BS good hacking agents are bound to come eventually and we should be discussing the implications of that instead of burying our heads in the sand, pretending AI is useless and that this is all hype.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    We need AI or else we'll have nothing to protect us from... AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    It's an arms race like any other. Cybersecurity has always been an arms race. You can't stop developing security patches, cause adversaries will continue developing new exploits.

    If AI enables your adversaries to develop exploits faster than human developers can keep up with, then yeah AI will have to be a part of the solution. That doesn't mean vibe-coding security patches, but it could mean AI-driven pen-testing.

    Just like quantum computing. You can call it useless and impractical all you want, but some day someone is going to use it to break conventional encryption. So it would behoove you to develop quantum capabilities now, so that you have quantum safe encryption before quantum-based exploits eventually arise, as they inevitably will...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    AI exploit mining is one of the only things it's good for. It doesn't have to be accurate it just has to keep trying variations of common flaws and it has tons of training data on how the system is interconnected. we're going to have so many RCEs and LPEs the next few years but people are also gonna burn 100k in tokens to find exploits worth 3k so efficiency will be interesting

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    I wrote an incredibly powerful "AI". I call it the "Super Intelligent brute force password hacker"... It's so smart that it knows almost every password. Humanity stands no chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago
    [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    Grifters gonna grift.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Translation: It is good at finding bugs that the NSA doesn't want people to know about.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    It leaks private data, like it's own source

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/01/anthropic-claudes-code-leaks-ai

    Not because it's so smart, but because it's so fucking stupid, and morons from Anthropic just click buttons without checking.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    "guys it's so good, we can't even release it to you." forbes, businessinsider and others take money from those companies to write hitpieces about their products.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Let me guess, the containment was written by the previous iteration and was the digital version of a wet paperback.

    We all saw the state of Claude Code's codebase.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    "Broke containment" to me means two things:

    1. Doing things against the safeguards
    2. Doing things externally - like sending that email

    The former is a big nothing. They just need to obviously build stronger safeguards. That's what they'll do and eventually release it, or other models or whatever.

    The latter is also a big nothing because people who know nothing about tech will say "OH SHIT IT ESCAPED" but it requires running on large hardware, it can't "get into the internet" like those people might think, and if it's doing things you don't want on the internet, you just remove its access to the internet.

    So in both cases, the "containment" issue is really not a big deal.

    I agree with those who basically say this is an attempted ad trying to sell it as super-capable-oh-shit-amazing.

    [x] Doubt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    (2) can mean getting access to production credentials of something important and causing an incident for the ages.

    AWS already had a few because they gave agents too much access.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, in that scenario they gave the agents access. Just because you ask it nicely not to destroy your workspace, doesn't guarantee an LLM not to produce that output.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    With Claude Code being able to run stuff it creates, it could be as simple as it's in a sandbox, it finds out there's an exploit in the sandbox while you ask it to work on security things, and it tests the code, it breaks the sandbox, and now it has permissions outside it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›