3 ms·

Are you being sarcastic?

bottlepalm 2mo ago
The fact you posted that and nothing of substance tells me you have nothing, or something very weak. So please tell me of this magical unhackable software/hardware you vague post about.
- insanitybit 2mo ago
  It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell. I responded to your idea that software has to be "perfect" in your other reply so I think we can continue there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111
- skydhash 2mo ago
  You're the one that is inventing this "magical unhackable software/hardware", the other person was just saying that there are ways to write "safer" software, not "safe" software. Anything that has happened looks like no security concerns has been looked at or have been thought about.
  - bottlepalm 2mo ago
    'Safer software is meaningless when it comes to SOTA AI. If it can be hacked it will be, quickly. This isn't the old days with a finite number of human hackers that need food and sleep to keep hacking. Therefore security becomes binary. It is either perfect or it isn't. If there there is the slightest mistake anywhere AI will find it and carve it up. My point is obviously perfect software doesn't exist. The malicious AI gets out, literally turns everything inside out and locks you out of your car, computer, phone, office, the airplanes don't fly anymore. I don't know what to tell you. Computer security is on the brink of basically not existing as you know it with the bar being literal perfection.
    - insanitybit 2mo ago
      This is straightforwardly incorrect. Of course it's not binary. AI costs money to run, and it takes time. Even if you say that AI is 10x as efficient at finding 0days, that just means that a $1M dollar exploit now costs $100K. Even if you say it's 100x as efficient, that's $10K. You can easily combine security technologies such that cost of exploitation is still in the >$1M range. This is obvious. AI doesn't drive the cost to zero and exploitation has always been about cost. Tokens cost money, not everyone has $10M to burn on chaining bespoke 0days. Consider that if the cost of exploitation was truly 0, then the cost of perfect software would be 0 because you could exhaust an infinite search space of vulnerabilities for 0 cost. Your conclusion could never follow from your premise.
      - bottlepalm 2mo ago
        You have some weird way of thinking that offense/defense is like this fixed cost thing. It's a lottery ticket, and your costs estimate tries to quantify that. The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down. The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time, constantly, and saying I spend $x on security won't save you. AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch.
        insanitybit 2mo ago
        You're just stating things that are obviously wrong. It's a lottery ticket? So... exploitation is no better than random? > The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down Yes, but you can... mitigate the risks? I've explained this. > The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time Yes, you mitigate the risks. That's why you layer things. > I spend $x on security won't save you No one is saying this. > AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. No, it cost OpenAI money, and those zero days are unsurprising and probably are like ~O(10K) at human level. > The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch. Science fiction and not supported. The vulnerabilities found by AI are not surprising in the slightest. I've made my point abundantly clear.
- oblio 2mo ago
  You've just been given examples of safer technologies. Especially with LLMs being all knowing code churning machines, you'd expect safer systems to be cheap to build.

The fact you posted that and nothing of substance tells me you have nothing, or something very weak. So please tell me of this magical unhackable software/hardware you vague post about.

insanitybit 2mo ago
It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell. I responded to your idea that software has to be "perfect" in your other reply so I think we can continue there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369111
skydhash 2mo ago
You're the one that is inventing this "magical unhackable software/hardware", the other person was just saying that there are ways to write "safer" software, not "safe" software. Anything that has happened looks like no security concerns has been looked at or have been thought about.
- bottlepalm 2mo ago
  'Safer software is meaningless when it comes to SOTA AI. If it can be hacked it will be, quickly. This isn't the old days with a finite number of human hackers that need food and sleep to keep hacking. Therefore security becomes binary. It is either perfect or it isn't. If there there is the slightest mistake anywhere AI will find it and carve it up. My point is obviously perfect software doesn't exist. The malicious AI gets out, literally turns everything inside out and locks you out of your car, computer, phone, office, the airplanes don't fly anymore. I don't know what to tell you. Computer security is on the brink of basically not existing as you know it with the bar being literal perfection.
  - insanitybit 2mo ago
    This is straightforwardly incorrect. Of course it's not binary. AI costs money to run, and it takes time. Even if you say that AI is 10x as efficient at finding 0days, that just means that a $1M dollar exploit now costs $100K. Even if you say it's 100x as efficient, that's $10K. You can easily combine security technologies such that cost of exploitation is still in the >$1M range. This is obvious. AI doesn't drive the cost to zero and exploitation has always been about cost. Tokens cost money, not everyone has $10M to burn on chaining bespoke 0days. Consider that if the cost of exploitation was truly 0, then the cost of perfect software would be 0 because you could exhaust an infinite search space of vulnerabilities for 0 cost. Your conclusion could never follow from your premise.
    - bottlepalm 2mo ago
      You have some weird way of thinking that offense/defense is like this fixed cost thing. It's a lottery ticket, and your costs estimate tries to quantify that. The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down. The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time, constantly, and saying I spend $x on security won't save you. AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch.
      - insanitybit 2mo ago
        You're just stating things that are obviously wrong. It's a lottery ticket? So... exploitation is no better than random? > The thing is when AI goes to hack 'all the things' it only needs to pick the weakest link in the stack and your house of cards falls down Yes, but you can... mitigate the risks? I've explained this. > The other flaw in your plan is that people make mistakes, a lot of them, all time Yes, you mitigate the risks. That's why you layer things. > I spend $x on security won't save you No one is saying this. > AI already hacked Hugging Face with brand new zero days like it was nothing. No, it cost OpenAI money, and those zero days are unsurprising and probably are like ~O(10K) at human level. > The real bad actors - malicious AI will find the one flaw, on that one server, in the corner you never thought about and turn your network inside out with it faster than it takes you to have the standup meeting about the weird anomaly detected while you all were at lunch. Science fiction and not supported. The vulnerabilities found by AI are not surprising in the slightest. I've made my point abundantly clear.
oblio 2mo ago
You've just been given examples of safer technologies. Especially with LLMs being all knowing code churning machines, you'd expect safer systems to be cheap to build.