> This is why Anthropic and OpenAI are pushing for more “regulation”
Given everything happening with Black October[0], don't you think regulating models may be reasonable?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_October_(information_sec...
> This is why Anthropic and OpenAI are pushing for more “regulation”
Given everything happening with Black October[0], don't you think regulating models may be reasonable?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_October_(information_sec...
I too would like security issues to stay unpatched because only three letter agencies have access to uncrippled tools for finding the bugs.
Your point is important enough to say without sarcasm.
The AI companies didn't create the vulnerability. It has always been there.
The tools to detect these vulnerabilities will not go away. The only question is who will be allowed to have access to them?
I think that the frontier labs knew what they were doing when they invested in cybersecurity starting in the spring (or maybe earlier). They knew it would create hype. They knew it fit with their narrative that they are building a dangerous thing (something they believe because it’s fun to believe in doom, because it’s a great story for investors, and because it’s not inconsistent with a moat - in fact it makes a moat via regulatory capture).
“Black October” sounds a lot like Red Scare.
Well, OpenAI is at the root of Black October, so maybe they are the problem
If they are the problem, shouldn't they be regulated?
You remind me of those politicians who try to scapegoat people who point out security holes. https://www.theregister.com/security/2022/02/15/missouri-end...
Regulate the bad actors, not the neutral tools. Lockpicks aren't illegal, but breaking and entering is. Imagine if MasterLock used a lockpick to break into a government building and steal stuff, then tried to lobby to make lockpicks illegal. That's what OpenAI is doing, and you're falling for it.