pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h \ parent \ on: Researchers question Anthropic claim that AI-assisted attack was 90% autonomous AI
I get what you’re saying, but in this case there was supposedly a human operator who interpreted the data collected by the AI and then directed the attack. What I mean is that those 0-day vulnerabilities might not have been found by the AI, but by the human. But this is just me wondering, I have no idea how it actually went down.
write
preview
33 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 2h
But if you send code to analyze to Claude, then Anthropic has that code. So they have the 0day code. You cannot ask Claude to analyze something without sending everything to anthropic.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Right. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anywhere in the report saying the AI was the one that found the 0day vulnerability.
reply
55 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2h
Yeah they just imply it with the 90%. "Give SuperClaude a list of targets and yeah... pwned" lol
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Correction: 80%-90% 🤠
Overall, the threat actor was able to use AI to perform 80-90% of the campaign, with human intervention required only sporadically (perhaps 4-6 critical decision points per hacking campaign).
https://www.anthropic.com/news/disrupting-AI-espionage
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2h
Okay. Here's a mindfuck back at them: How do they have any idea what the humans did unless they were employing them?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
¯\(ツ)/¯
reply