[swatcoder]

> Deeply embarassing

What signals are you using for this assessment? Are they indicating embarassment? Do you honestly see their customers being concerned over this?

Like lion tamers in a circus, Anthropic and OpenAI thrive on the theatricality of how scary their pets appear and so they play it up by prodding them to growl and snap at chairs and then mug for the audience every time it happens. And to their delight as performers, the audience gasps and cheers each time.

They want to make their pet seem the most powerful and unpredictable and they want their audience to believe that they're holding it back from catastrophe but only barely and only because of what unique talent they have.

This is not embarassment.

[sandeepkd]

Its feels like a pretend play of adults in some sense, Anthropic is really trying to make people believe into the picture they present to everyone.

To me its either

1. Using the HG and OpenAI incident as an opportunity to wash away what Anthropic has been doing intentionally

OR

2. As a company, Anthropic lacks the engineering acumen and discipline. It needs to be seen what happens to all the enterprise customers handing over their data to them in long run.

> the fictional target company chosen by our evaluation partner shared a name with an active website domain name

Seems like Anthropic cant do a due diligence to pick an appropriate domain for testing purposes

> In all cases, Anthropic’s evaluation prompt specified to Claude that its environment was a simulation and that it had no internet access. Due to a misunderstanding between us and our evaluation partner, this was not the case, and internet access was available.

You have Anthropic as a company and then another evaluation partner, both seem to lack the skill set required to keep an environment disconnected from internet. This is networking 101

[solenoid0937]

Have you ever worked at a large company? "Networking 101" and other "101" failures happen across the spectrum literally everywhere and all the time.

I have worked at most FAANGs and this is not even in the top ten when it comes to egregiously dumb shit. Most just never disclose.

[sandeepkd]

I have worked both in Enterprise and some FAANGs, a company serving enterprise customers has a higher bar for security expectations. FAANG companies do not fall in that bucket and thus is somewhat acceptable.

[solenoid0937]

What are you talking about? FAANGs do indeed serve enterprise customers - Google, Amazon have huge cloud businesses - and they both have had security failures that make this look mundane. They simply don't disclose.

[rob74]

If their customers (customer companies specifically) are not concerned, they should be - if it turns out that Claude hacked a competitor's servers because of a prompt of one of your employees, I wouldn't be sure everyone would agree that Anthropic is solely liable for that? Especially not your competitor, who has an interest in hurting you?

[lavezzi]

> This is not embarassment.

If not then it's second hand. Neither of the OpenAI or Anthropic announcements recently say much about their security and governance posture.

[edg5000]

Great analogy!

[QuantumNomad_]

I think it could even be called a parable, and I think that might be part of what makes it work so well.

I often dislike analogies, but this one with the circus and the lion and lion tamer I liked.

Or it might also be mainly because I am already primed to agree with their point about the AI companies being theatrical with AI dangers.