[fwipsy]

Amodei isn't ignoring reality; he's just proposing a different solution to the problem. If it were one of Anthropic's models, then that would be a much stronger case.

Rapid proliferation of hacking capabilities may make experts safer, but organizations and individuals who don't know to use AI, or won't, or buy AI protection from scammers, or whatever will be left vulnerable.

[duplessitous]

I don't think you and I need multiple different threads open when we are clearly at odds. This is no different from our other thread, I think it is clear there is nothing of value to continue when I am getting pinged with a summary of your previous comment in a different place

"Rapid proliferation of hacking capabilities may make experts safer, but organizations and individuals who don't know to use AI, or won't, or buy AI protection from scammers, or whatever will be left vulnerable."

Which just means that they're fucked when closed AI hacks them. Something that has actually happened. This isn't argument against anything other than reality. Have a day

[fwipsy]

GLM 5.2 didn't defend them at all. It only helped with the postmortem. HF was fucked either way. The only thing that will really prevent this is tighter restrictions on the attacking model. We need policies which asymmetrically help defenders; that means regulations. "Give everyone the best models without restrictions" is the opposite of that.

I'm sorry for splitting into two threads; I understand if you need to step away from the computer for a while. To be honest, I should probably do the same.

[duplessitous]

I did need to walk away that speaks more to my frustration with certain forms of communication (online, not anything in this thread). I am a horrible remote only worker because of this, I am trying to improve it but am lucky for now as I am in-person

You're right again about GLM 5.2 being purely post-mortem, I didn't realize that till I read the cnbc story. OpenAI, whatever they have, cracked em like it was nothing. Egg on my face, I really need to read my own articles better. Thanks for following up and educating me on this, another good reminder that I need to improve my ability to steel-man written text

[fwipsy]

Hey, it's all good. Sometimes things get a little heated, but I still feel like you were basically engaging in good faith. I should have skipped straight to the point and found the source in my first reply.

Also, I probably overstated my claim a bit. I did some searches and I see only small-scale AI uplift for cybercriminals, even though my understanding is that open models aren't typically hard to jailbreak. Of course this is may be a result of today's guardrails; it may be that it just hasn't been caught, and it may appear later, but it still weakens my argument a great deal. I guess my support for AI regulation stems more from fears over long-shot bad outcomes (biosecurity, who knows what else) rather than cybersecurity specifically.