3 ms·

From the article: > Security professionals who wish to use Opus 4.7 for legitimate cybersecurity purposes (such as vulnerability research, penetration testing,

by senko 6mo ago

From the article: > Security professionals who wish to use Opus 4.7 for legitimate cybersecurity purposes (such as vulnerability research, penetration testing, and red-teaming) are invited to join our new Cyber Verification Program.

ACCount37 6mo ago
Yeah no. They can fuck right off with KYC humiliation rituals.
atonse 6mo ago
This seems reasonable to me. The legit security firms won't have a problem doing this, just like other vendors (like Apple, who can give you special iOS builds for security analysis). If anyone has a better idea on how to _pragmatically_ do this, I'm all ears.
- adrian_b 6mo ago
  If the vendors of programs do not want bugs to be found in their programs, they should search for them themselves and ensure that there are no such bugs. The "legit security firms" have no right to be considered more "legit" than any other human for the purpose of finding bugs or vulnerabilities in programs. If I buy and use a program, I certainly do not want it to have any bug or vulnerability, so it is my right to search for them. If the program is not commercial, but free, then it is also my right to search for bugs and vulnerabilities in it. I might find acceptable to not search for bugs or vulnerabilities in a program only if the authors of that program would assume full liability in perpetuity for any kind of damage that would ever be caused by their program, in any circumstances, which is the opposite of what almost any software company currently does, by disclaiming all liabilities. There exists absolutely no scenario where Anthropic has any right to decide who deserves to search for bugs and vulnerabilities and who does not. If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with the behaviors of modern companies that would have been considered absolutely unacceptable by anyone, a few decades ago.
  - senko 6mo ago
    > If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. In civilised parts of the world, if you want to buy a gun, or poison, or larger amount of chemicals which can be used for nefarious purposes, you need to provide your identity and the reason why you need it. Heck, if you want to move a larger amount of money between your bank accounts, the bank will ask you why. Why are those acceptable, yet the above isn't? > I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with Unsure where you got the "younger people" from.
    - adrian_b 6mo ago
      Your examples have nothing to do with Anthropic and the like. A gun does not have other purposes than being used as a weapon, so it is normal for the use of such weapons to be regulated. On the other hand it is not acceptable to regulate like weapons the tools that are required for other activities, for instance kitchen knives or many chemicals, like acids and alkalis, which are useful for various purposes and which in the past could be bought freely for centuries, without that ever causing any serious problems. LLMs are not weapons, they are tools. Any tools can be used in a bad or dangerous way, including as weapons, but that is not a reason good enough to justify restrictions in their use, because such restrictions have much more bad consequences than good consequences. > Unsure where you got the "younger people" from. Like I have said, none of the people that I know from my generation have ever found acceptable the kinds of terms and conditions that are imposed nowadays by most big companies for using their products or their attempts to transition their customers from owning products to renting products. The people who are now in their forties are a generation after me, so most of them are already much more compliant with these corporate demands, which affects me and the other people who still refuse to comply, because the companies can afford to not offer alternatives when they have enough docile customers.
  - atonse 6mo ago
    Not sure where the younger people thing came from, but I'm 45 and have been working in this industry since 1999. But even when I was in my 20s, I don't remember considering that I had a "right" to do something with a company's product before they've sold it to me. In fact, I would say the idea of entitlement and use of words like "rights" when you're talking about a company's policies and terms of use (of which you are perfectly fine to not participate. rights have nothing to do with anything here. you're free to just not use these tools) feels more like a stereotypical "young" person's argument that sees everything through moralistic and "rights" based principles. If you don't want to sign these documents, don't. This is true of pretty much every single private transaction, from employment, to anything else. It is your choice. If you don't want to give your ID to get a bank account, don't. Keep the cash in your mattress or bitcoin instead. Regarding "legit" - there are absolutely "legit" actors and not so "legit" actors, we can apply common sense here. I'm sure we can both come up with edge cases (this is an internet argument after all), but common cases are a good place to start.

by senko 6mo ago

ACCount37 6mo ago

Yeah no. They can fuck right off with KYC humiliation rituals.

atonse 6mo ago

This seems reasonable to me. The legit security firms won't have a problem doing this, just like other vendors (like Apple, who can give you special iOS builds for security analysis). If anyone has a better idea on how to _pragmatically_ do this, I'm all ears.

adrian_b 6mo ago
If the vendors of programs do not want bugs to be found in their programs, they should search for them themselves and ensure that there are no such bugs. The "legit security firms" have no right to be considered more "legit" than any other human for the purpose of finding bugs or vulnerabilities in programs. If I buy and use a program, I certainly do not want it to have any bug or vulnerability, so it is my right to search for them. If the program is not commercial, but free, then it is also my right to search for bugs and vulnerabilities in it. I might find acceptable to not search for bugs or vulnerabilities in a program only if the authors of that program would assume full liability in perpetuity for any kind of damage that would ever be caused by their program, in any circumstances, which is the opposite of what almost any software company currently does, by disclaiming all liabilities. There exists absolutely no scenario where Anthropic has any right to decide who deserves to search for bugs and vulnerabilities and who does not. If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with the behaviors of modern companies that would have been considered absolutely unacceptable by anyone, a few decades ago.
- senko 6mo ago
  > If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. In civilised parts of the world, if you want to buy a gun, or poison, or larger amount of chemicals which can be used for nefarious purposes, you need to provide your identity and the reason why you need it. Heck, if you want to move a larger amount of money between your bank accounts, the bank will ask you why. Why are those acceptable, yet the above isn't? > I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with Unsure where you got the "younger people" from.
  - adrian_b 6mo ago
    Your examples have nothing to do with Anthropic and the like. A gun does not have other purposes than being used as a weapon, so it is normal for the use of such weapons to be regulated. On the other hand it is not acceptable to regulate like weapons the tools that are required for other activities, for instance kitchen knives or many chemicals, like acids and alkalis, which are useful for various purposes and which in the past could be bought freely for centuries, without that ever causing any serious problems. LLMs are not weapons, they are tools. Any tools can be used in a bad or dangerous way, including as weapons, but that is not a reason good enough to justify restrictions in their use, because such restrictions have much more bad consequences than good consequences. > Unsure where you got the "younger people" from. Like I have said, none of the people that I know from my generation have ever found acceptable the kinds of terms and conditions that are imposed nowadays by most big companies for using their products or their attempts to transition their customers from owning products to renting products. The people who are now in their forties are a generation after me, so most of them are already much more compliant with these corporate demands, which affects me and the other people who still refuse to comply, because the companies can afford to not offer alternatives when they have enough docile customers.
- atonse 6mo ago
  Not sure where the younger people thing came from, but I'm 45 and have been working in this industry since 1999. But even when I was in my 20s, I don't remember considering that I had a "right" to do something with a company's product before they've sold it to me. In fact, I would say the idea of entitlement and use of words like "rights" when you're talking about a company's policies and terms of use (of which you are perfectly fine to not participate. rights have nothing to do with anything here. you're free to just not use these tools) feels more like a stereotypical "young" person's argument that sees everything through moralistic and "rights" based principles. If you don't want to sign these documents, don't. This is true of pretty much every single private transaction, from employment, to anything else. It is your choice. If you don't want to give your ID to get a bank account, don't. Keep the cash in your mattress or bitcoin instead. Regarding "legit" - there are absolutely "legit" actors and not so "legit" actors, we can apply common sense here. I'm sure we can both come up with edge cases (this is an internet argument after all), but common cases are a good place to start.