Top
Best
New

Posted by Ryan5453 10 hours ago

Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era(www.anthropic.com)
Related: Assessing Claude Mythos Preview's cybersecurity capabilities - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47679155

System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47679258

Also: Anthropic's Project Glasswing sounds necessary to me - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681241

955 points | 425 commentspage 6
maxmaio 8 hours ago|
seems important and terrifying. This morning Opus 4.6 was blowing my mind in claude code... onward and upward
kristofferR 6 hours ago||
This is pretty insane. A model so powerful they felt that releasing it would create a netsec tsunami if released publicly. AGI isn't here yet, but we don't need to get there for massive societal effects. How long will they hold off, especially as competitors are getting closer to their releases of equally powerful models?
charcircuit 6 hours ago|
OpenAI did the same thing with GPT3 trying to scare people into thinking it would end the internet. OpenAI even reached out to someone who reproduced a weaker version of GPT3 and convinced him to change his mind about releasing it publicly due to how much "harm" it would cause.

These claims of how much harm the models will cause is always overblown.

kristofferR 2 hours ago||
Sure, but the GPT3 thing was mostly hype without stuff to back it up. On the other hand - the reported numbers on specific benchmarks here are insane, I don't doubt that it will have a major impact if it actually is that much more powerful than Opus, and I'd doubt they'd outright lie about benchmark results.
impulser_ 10 hours ago||
So they are only giving access to their smartest model to corporations.

You think these AI companies are really going to give AGI access to everyone. Think again.

We better fucking hope open source wins, because we aren't getting access if it doesn't.

open592 9 hours ago||
This story has been played out numerous times already. Anthropic (or any frontier lab) has a new model with SOTA results. It pretends like it's Christ incarnate and represents the end of the world as we know it. Gates its release to drum up excitement and mystique.

Then the next lab catches up and releases it more broadly

Then later the open weights model is released.

The only way this type of technology is going to be gated "to only corporations" is if we continue on this exponential scaling trend as the "SOTA" model is always out of reach.

dreis_sw 9 hours ago|||
It also took many years to put capable computers in the hands of the general public, but it eventually happened. I believe the same will happen here, we're just in the Mainframe era of AI.
impulser_ 8 hours ago||
Yeah, but computers don't replace you. They are building AI to replace you. You think if these companies eventually achieve AGI that you are going to give you access to it? They are already gatekeeping an LLM because they don't trust you with it.
dievskiy 7 hours ago|||
Would you hope that it would be released today so that evil actors could invest few millions to search for 0days across popular open-source repos?
justincormack 10 hours ago|||
And the Linux Foundation.
throwaw12 10 hours ago||
of course they're not giving access to everyone.

they better make billions directly from corporations, instead of giving them to average people who might get a chance out of poverty (but also bad actors using it to do even more bad things)

krackers 9 hours ago||
Anthropic's definition of "safe AI" precludes open-source AI. This is clear if you listen to what he says in interviews, I think he might even prefer OpenAI's closed source models winning to having open-source AI (because at least in the former it's not a free-for-all)
kmfrk 8 hours ago||
Heck of a Patch Tuesday.
copypaper 6 hours ago||
Yea, but can it secure systems from the unpatchable $5 wrench vulnerability?

https://xkcd.com/538/

oyebenny 9 hours ago||
why do I feel like the auditing industry is about to evaporate? thanks to this.
KeplerBoy 7 hours ago|
I guess the more likely option is the auditing industry will pay huge sums to get access to those models as vetted operators.
nickandbro 9 hours ago||
I want it
zb3 8 hours ago||
BTW it seems they forgot about the part that defense uses of the model also need to be safeguarded from people. Because what if a bad person from a bad country tries to defend against peaceful attacks from a good country like the US? That would be a tragedy, so we need to limit defensive capabilities too.
Fokamul 9 hours ago||
+ NSA, CIA
nikcub 9 hours ago|
Department of War timing on picking fights couldn't be worse
0xbadcafebee 10 hours ago|
tl;dr we find vulns so we can help big companies fix their security holes quickly (and so they can profit off it)

This is a kludge. We already know how to prevent vulnerabilities: analysis, testing, following standard guidelines and practices for safe software and infrastructure. But nobody does these things, because it's extra work, time and money, and they're lazy and cheap. So the solution they want is to keep building shitty software, but find the bugs in code after the fact, and that'll be good enough.

This will never be as good as a software building code. We must demand our representatives in government pass laws requiring software be architected, built, and run according to a basic set of industry standard best practices to prevent security and safety failures.

For those claiming this is too much to ask, I ask you: What will you say the next time all of Delta Airlines goes down because a security company didn't run their application one time with a config file before pushing it to prod? What will the happen the next time your social security number is taken from yet another random company entrusted with vital personal information and woefully inadequate security architecture?

There's no defense for this behavior. Yet things like this are going to keep happening, because we let it. Without a legal means to require this basic safety testing with critical infrastructure, they will continue to fail. Without enforcement of good practice, it remains optional. We can't keep letting safety and security be optional. It's not in the physical world, it shouldn't be in the virtual world.

More comments...