upvote

points

by orangedog6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby digitaltrees4 hours ago|
next
[-]
Because it is a reasonable logical inference from the facts.

1. OpenAI started the current AI cycle

2. That cycle has exposed exponentially more security vulnerabilities due to agentic coding

3. OpenAI is rushing as fast as they can to reach the singularity even while acknowledging that they lack the ability to ensure reasonable safety.

4. They launch an initiative to “address” the security vulnerabilities by using their coding tools.

Am I missing something? There is a broad range of motives and responses.

reply
upvoteby zodiac2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In this case (the PHP bug), the "AI cycle" may have exposed the security vulnerability but it did not create it. If someone released a non-AI-based static analysis tool that was really good at exposing vulnerabilities I wouldn't expect that person to foot the bill of fixing the exposed vulnerabilities
reply
upvoteby digitaltrees2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That’s a fine point but the sheer volume of bug discovery and exploitation that is now possible is the problem, not the mere existence of a bug. An undiscovered bug is a problem, billions of coding agents searching every bit of software 24/7 for any vulnerability is a disruptive change that is exacerbated by the speed run competition that disregards the risk.
reply
upvoteby jfsebastian49 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I would steer in this direction: We have a massive mountain of technical debt that is now being laid bare by AI. I suspect that a good portion of the mess for which various three-letter agencies are responsible has its origins in precisely this mess. We should therefore allow things to get worse before they can get better.
reply
upvoteby digitaltrees29 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Railway was just hacked and every environment variable was leaked. People’s accounts are being charged real money. I have to rotate all my keys instead of eating dinner with my kids. My point is we could do this in a safer way rather than a fast way.
reply
upvoteby warkdarrior1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Maybe programmers should not create so much buggy software. Did you try that?
reply
upvoteby dmz731 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What if that same person released non-"AI"" based exploit generation tool? Not so clear cut that they would be off the hook. But if you just add "AI" suddenly you can both charge money for it and wash your hands of consequences.
reply
upvoteby eecc1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
No, vulns have been created by waves of leads clinging to their personas of “computer sorcerers”, gatekeeping, excluding anyone sounding the alarm or more humbly attempting to fix the mess. Whenever I hear “with great power comes great responsibility” (and the implication that the speaker is condescendingly containing the irresponsible) I cringe so hard that my teeth crack
reply
upvoteby wartywhoa235 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Imagine a world full of locks that humans can only rarely pick.

Then, someone releases a pick that works for many more locks humans couldn't pick.

And says: You can't stop the progress. Now pay us to upgrade your locks (no-no, they won't be doctored to fit our next-gen picks, trust us!)

reply
upvoteby shermantanktop52 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
That last bit is unnecessary. If pick development is accelerating, the lockmakers can do their very best in good faith to build the best, most pick-proof locks possible, no doctoring involved. And still those locks will be pickable eventually.
reply
upvoteby digitaltrees4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs. In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner. I would love to understand where you are coming from. I am open to being persuaded that my opinion is incomplete and I should be more charitable to openAI and anthropic.
reply
upvoteby orangedog3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs.

I don't use these models much I just don't like unfair criticism.

> In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner.

I'm confused, are you posting under two identities?

The user Frieren claimed that this post constituted securities fraud. To which I responded: "You're claiming this is securities fraud?"

Is that dismissive? It was a genuine question, I don't get how it's even accurate say that they are lying in the post and I especially don't get how it is securities fraud.

Your post doesn't have anything to do with the blogpost. Once again, I'm not against criticism just unfair/weak criticism. I don't think it helps anything.

reply
upvoteby digitaltrees3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can say specifically what you think was unfair about my framing. I am open to debate.

I am not posting from two profiles. I looked at your prior comments and saw you had responded to me or someone I was debating elsewhere.

reply