top 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 4 months ago (10 children)
  • [+] [S] -13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)
  • [–] 34 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    "Chief claims" - without evidence, this means absolutely nothing. Especially as this was a higher up, who likely heard about something happening through multiple layers of reports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] [S] -20 points 4 months ago* (7 children)
  • [+] 17 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [+] [S] -14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)
  • [+] 16 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [+] [S] -12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)
  • [+] 12 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] [S] -4 points 4 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It is wild that people who are supposedly against AI don't want to believe it is dangerous. Don't underestimate your enemies. AI is genuinely dangerous, that's a big part of the reason why I'm against it. That doesn't mean I think it's smart, or intelligent, or useful, or any of those things. But it makes people think it is, and that's genuinely dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, to be fair, Anthropic has been leaning pretty hard on the "ooooh, look at our AI, it's sooo dangerous *spooky hands* you all need to be afraid of it because of how powerful it is and I'm sure none of you will want to try it when we finally are allowed by the government to release it" OooOooOOOooooOOoo (more spooky ghost noises)

    I can kind of get why people are kneejerk reacting with "AI is not dangerous that's marketing garbage" and a lot of that specific bullshit is, but don't kneejerk so far your leg breaks. AI can absolutely be dangerous. Mythos ain't necessarily it, but don't generalize that to all AI, and it doesn't even need to be powerful to be dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It's too dangerous !!! Btw buy our stock, our IPO is coming soon

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)
    [–] 21 points 4 months ago* (21 children)

    Completely baseless and stupid claim from an admin that lies more often than not. This would be crazy if true though.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] [S] -13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (20 children)
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    If you think its hacking nearly all NSA systems you're cooked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] [S] -12 points 4 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Hey look it's a 5 day old AI evangelist account.

    You clearly don't understand the technology, which disqualifies you from fear stoking the masses who also dont understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 4 months ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    You believe AI can hack systems, that's what i'm basing this on, and your other comments which are all promoting LLMs to be far more than they actually are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    If you mean that LLMs are more powerful brute force attackers, sure, but "Anthropic models hacked" and the OP you wrote yourself is just fearmongering. At best LLMs can tech a person who did not previously know how, how to commit certain crimes, and possibly create bash scripts to automate this, but that is not a model that autonomously hacks.

    The hype is purely to drive the coming IPO, they have to go hard and fast before the world realises what rouse is being pulled.

    If you just want to critically think for one moment: (leaving asside models have no autonomous agency) If the Mythos-class models really are that impressive, and it did what they claimed, how was it not disabled before Fable went public? Mythos had been 'out' for over a month to those select few orgs.

    There's a discussion in the House of Lords last week which is a bunch of grandma's and grandpa's yapping on about the dangers of AI. You remind me of them. Remember how little people understand about the toxic algorithms of social media? They understand about 100x less of this, and are all making kneejerk decisions because they don't understand anything and are scared if something goes wrong, the buck will stop with them.

    And Anthropic and Open AI both benefit from not educating people too much, because that would pop the Myth and the Fable they are trying to sell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 4 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I have an above average understanding of the underlying technology, and there is no more threat today from "AI" than there has been from other sophisticated tools circulating on the dark web for decades.

    To use an analogy: I understand how a combustion engine works. If you suddenly came out and claimed that combustion engines are able to mow grass and we would never have to mow lawns ourselves gain, I would understand enough to know you're out of your depth.

    You can believe pigs can fly, but to people who understand pigs, they will just see you're talking about beliefs, because the knowledge and the science says, that simply because of their lack of wings and fairly dense bodies, the rotation of their tiny curly tails is simply insufficient to provide the lift to make them airborne.

    What you can do is put lipstick on said pig, and that is what I'll let you do now, just expect to run into resistance when you talk to people who know instead of believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Hey buddy... How does AI work? Just, briefly explain how it works so we can verify that you know what you're talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, no, I know how these things work generally, but do you? I'll let you decide if you wanna pick LLMs or Generative AI or Machine Learning. How does any AI "learn"? How does it do anything? How would any of these AI systems hack anything. Just... Walk us all through it. Because if you don't know how these things work or would work, then I'm not gonna trust your assertions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 12 points 4 months ago* (3 children)
  • [+] [S] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Fable/Mythos was already shown to not be that much better at vulnerability finding than previous models. If anything this is basically saying that security at the NSA really isn't up to par.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago
    [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    All I see is market manipulation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong when it's released worldwide

  • source