4 ms·

So, supposing it's true that these models completely change the security field and humans are ~obsolete other than as pilots guiding them what to crack, you thi

So, supposing it's true that these models completely change the security field and humans are ~obsolete other than as pilots guiding them what to crack, you think it's reasonable that Anthropic and OpenAI should unilaterally determine who gets to be a security professional? I hope you do understand that is what you are suggesting.

Forgeties79 5mo ago
Not to mention how wild it is to operate under the assumption that they won’t give a license to an LLM that can do illegal actions to someone who shouldn’t have it. Offering it at all is an ethically dicey question.
- lazide 5mo ago
  Lol, how is any of this illegal? Illegal or not requires context that an LLM can not ever have, like if it is owned by the user, if there is permission, etc.
fc417fc802 5mo ago
Why should anyone get to determine that? Do people really want us to move to an exclusionary guild system? I thought the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security.
- lazide 5mo ago
  Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.
  - estearum 5mo ago
    Vendors choose what capabilities they create and sell literally all day every day.
    - ambicapter 5mo ago
      You should read that sentence as > Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what [the guild's] capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.
      - estearum 5mo ago
        But that's not true. Again: Vendors absolutely pick and choose what their customers' capabilities are. Regardless of whether "the guild allows them to." Guilds can't force people to make or sell tools against their will – obviously. The analog you're trying to describe doesn't exist, which is Anthropic saying nobody else can make and sell an offensive model to "the guild."
        lazide 5mo ago
        Guilds often very much did assert what people could and could not build - historically. Against their will. Historically that is a major reason why guilds existed, actually. It’s an extremely modern invention that corps have these type of power over their customers.
        estearum 5mo ago
        You've lost the thread. Here's your original claim: "no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were" A carpenter's guild can prevent other people from doing carpentry. That is not what's being discussed here. A carpenter's guild cannot force a horseshoe maker to begin making hammers. That is what's being discussed. Your initial claim was analogous to "never before has a horseshoe maker been able to decline making hammers when the carpenter's guild needed hammers" Obviously they have and any other state of affairs would be flatly insane.
        lazide 5mo ago
        That is not my example at all, if we’re talking coding agents eh?
- tredre3 5mo ago
  > the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security. Has it? Can you prove it? I've been using computers for almost 40 years. I've seen foss-enthusiasts repeat that claim ad-nauseam, without proof. All they ave is the vague, hand-wavy, "millions of people read the code!!11". I use both proprietary and foss software. I write both proprietary and foss software. I have not noticed a meaningful difference in security.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    Then I think you haven't been paying attention. We regularly see examples of companies attempting to cover up vulnerabilities, attacking security researchers, dragging their feet on fixes, etc. Meanwhile you can easily see for yourself how long it takes various FOSS projects to get patched and often what the attitude of the devs is. You can also take an aggregate view. Presumably skilled developers working on major projects should be expected to have similar rates of security issues. So compare CVE frequency between various FOSS and closed source projects.
bryanrasmussen 5mo ago
I wish you understood that there are organizations of security professions that are not controlled by Anthropic and OpenAI and that it is a common thing that when companies of any type sell to professionals of any type it is not the companies that determine whether or not the people they sell to are professionals but membership in professional organizations. As an example the people who sell police uniforms check that the person they are selling to is in fact a policeman (at least in the jurisdictions I have lived in, you may have had a different experience which would certainly explain what to me seems a farcical misapprehension of how modern civilization works) I mean I just wish you understood, and really that everyone understood, that this kind of three part communication (company selling, buyer, professional organization certifying buyer) is often when buying things that are considered to have security implications. >So, supposing it's true that these models completely change the security field and humans are ~obsolete OK, well that strike me as a really crazy level of supposition there. I would suppose that these models make it easier for people who want to do bad things to do bad things at scale, at the same time allowing people who want to stop bad things to help identify potential targets. Based on my supposition I would want to stop the first and find a way of helping the second. Also because I have another supposition that the first thing is easier to do than the second. But you obviously feel differently about this issue, no doubt because of your position of great moral stature and insight, and this no doubt prompts you to wish to me to understand things that from my position seem absolutely ludicrous.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

Forgeties79 5mo ago

Not to mention how wild it is to operate under the assumption that they won’t give a license to an LLM that can do illegal actions to someone who shouldn’t have it. Offering it at all is an ethically dicey question.

lazide 5mo ago
Lol, how is any of this illegal? Illegal or not requires context that an LLM can not ever have, like if it is owned by the user, if there is permission, etc.

fc417fc802 5mo ago

Why should anyone get to determine that? Do people really want us to move to an exclusionary guild system? I thought the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security.

lazide 5mo ago
Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.
- estearum 5mo ago
  Vendors choose what capabilities they create and sell literally all day every day.
  - ambicapter 5mo ago
    You should read that sentence as > Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what [the guild's] capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.
    - estearum 5mo ago
      But that's not true. Again: Vendors absolutely pick and choose what their customers' capabilities are. Regardless of whether "the guild allows them to." Guilds can't force people to make or sell tools against their will – obviously. The analog you're trying to describe doesn't exist, which is Anthropic saying nobody else can make and sell an offensive model to "the guild."
      - lazide 5mo ago
        Guilds often very much did assert what people could and could not build - historically. Against their will. Historically that is a major reason why guilds existed, actually. It’s an extremely modern invention that corps have these type of power over their customers.
        estearum 5mo ago
        You've lost the thread. Here's your original claim: "no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were" A carpenter's guild can prevent other people from doing carpentry. That is not what's being discussed here. A carpenter's guild cannot force a horseshoe maker to begin making hammers. That is what's being discussed. Your initial claim was analogous to "never before has a horseshoe maker been able to decline making hammers when the carpenter's guild needed hammers" Obviously they have and any other state of affairs would be flatly insane.
        lazide 5mo ago
        That is not my example at all, if we’re talking coding agents eh?
tredre3 5mo ago
> the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security. Has it? Can you prove it? I've been using computers for almost 40 years. I've seen foss-enthusiasts repeat that claim ad-nauseam, without proof. All they ave is the vague, hand-wavy, "millions of people read the code!!11". I use both proprietary and foss software. I write both proprietary and foss software. I have not noticed a meaningful difference in security.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  Then I think you haven't been paying attention. We regularly see examples of companies attempting to cover up vulnerabilities, attacking security researchers, dragging their feet on fixes, etc. Meanwhile you can easily see for yourself how long it takes various FOSS projects to get patched and often what the attitude of the devs is. You can also take an aggregate view. Presumably skilled developers working on major projects should be expected to have similar rates of security issues. So compare CVE frequency between various FOSS and closed source projects.

bryanrasmussen 5mo ago

I wish you understood that there are organizations of security professions that are not controlled by Anthropic and OpenAI and that it is a common thing that when companies of any type sell to professionals of any type it is not the companies that determine whether or not the people they sell to are professionals but membership in professional organizations. As an example the people who sell police uniforms check that the person they are selling to is in fact a policeman (at least in the jurisdictions I have lived in, you may have had a different experience which would certainly explain what to me seems a farcical misapprehension of how modern civilization works) I mean I just wish you understood, and really that everyone understood, that this kind of three part communication (company selling, buyer, professional organization certifying buyer) is often when buying things that are considered to have security implications. >So, supposing it's true that these models completely change the security field and humans are ~obsolete OK, well that strike me as a really crazy level of supposition there. I would suppose that these models make it easier for people who want to do bad things to do bad things at scale, at the same time allowing people who want to stop bad things to help identify potential targets. Based on my supposition I would want to stop the first and find a way of helping the second. Also because I have another supposition that the first thing is easier to do than the second. But you obviously feel differently about this issue, no doubt because of your position of great moral stature and insight, and this no doubt prompts you to wish to me to understand things that from my position seem absolutely ludicrous.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]