upvote
Project Zero has been around far longer than GenAI or LLMs, so your point is not really relevant here.
reply
How is it irrelevant? Just because an effort existed before some change, doesn’t mean it can be repurposed and leveraged for other purposes. It’s the entire reason law and policy for government isn’t set in stone and is adaptable, because culture, technology and so on change.

The dynamic in this context absolutely has changed. Marginal cost to discover vulnerabilities from AI frontier labs and the big players has dropped significantly. The cost to patch is low, if you have access to certain resources. If you don’t, tough luck.

So this argument is essentially against the entire argument of AI alignment guardrails right now. Maybe you disagree with those, but I for one am happy they’re doing some things to protect against bio related warfare engineering. This is a case of cyber that’s about grey. Even there the labs have limited access to some and are choosing winners.

reply
The "product" that finds Project Zero bugs is the people who work for Project Zero.
reply
Usually you can’t find the kind of bugs P0 finds by just throwing AI at it. You need highly skilled people driving/guiding it. Highly skilled people are the bottleneck.

In any case it’d be sensible to make yourself familiar with the “specific effort” before you make up your opinion on it.

reply
You say that like it's a bad thing...

I mean, sure, the cited $10k / mo is exploitative for small open-source projects but... in general, why wouldn't we want there to be pressure on companies and projects to use high-quality LLM-based checks if they want to see wide adoption?

reply