drop every Amazon service you use today and advocate for others to do the same

No, the actual claims here, that describe specific bugs in specific software, can be evaluated. Even without whipping out a test environment to try to reproduce the results with your own proof of concept, you can read the text and evaluate whether the claims make sense on their face.

Again, why would I bother? I do not work for Anthropic nor any of the other open source projects they are claiming to help so I have not stake in this fight. I am content to ignore whatever wins anthropic claims and wait until those open source projects, whom I do trust more, let me know if these claims are real or not.

I don’t give a shit about AI and I’m generally a skeptic of the future of any of these AI companies. But if someone uses AI tools to discover something new in the subjects that I do care about, like cybersecurity, then I’ll pay attention to the results and what they publish in that field.

Ok, you do you bud… I am happy ignoring Ai until they are proven by third parties… not sure what’s so challenging with that notion

The statements can stand for themselves, evaluated on the merits of the claims, regardless of authorship.

Sure but where is the practicality of that? According to your POV here, companies can claim whatever and it’s my job now to figure out if they are lying or to what extent. I have already lived through that and decided their output is completely untrustworthy so I rather wait for a trustworthy source before giving them any credit. I am not claiming 100% of what Anthropic says is a complete lie, I am saying I cannot trust it at face value.

On the flip side, the corollary to the adage that a broken clock is still right twice a day is that you can’t just say “oh the broken clock said this so I can ignore it.”

Funny you use this saying because a broken clock is never right, reality momentarily aligns with it, which is a completely different thing… and even then, for every minute of the day, a clock is still wrong 1438 times a day… I would rather not use suck broken clock as a reference AT ALL

The blog post literally describes exactly that, for ffmpeg. And several of the other described vulnerabilities sound like they’re in that category of “here’s a bug but we didn’t find an exploit.”

Case in point, they do not claim that in the title or intro. Their entire intro (in the blog you posted) is all about how amazing Mythos is

…who cares?

People like me who rather not keep feeding the Ai hype. Assuming these vulnerabilities are real and could have been exploited, yes I am happy they get fixed. But I am never giving credit to “Ai” unless it is an absolute certainty Ai did it and did it better than humans would

Yes I understand, but I’m also putting the direct claims right there, not filtered through Anthropic’s PR or an article from the IT industry press interpreting those PR statements.

How do you know Antropic’s PR is not in this? certainly all these employees have signed NDAs about inner workings of the company they work for. Do you really think any of them would post something like “yeah, we found a vulnerability but it’s basically a typo that could not be seriously exploited”?

These are real CVEs…

Regarding this… I just saw another post where people were challenging ffmpeg about accepting PRs from Anthropic and their answer was that the PR were written by humans, not any of the Anthropic Ai, so even if the whole scenario is real, it may not have the intervention of Ai they are claiming

… And treating it as just marketing fluff ignores the shades of gray that actually apply to corporate claims.

This is really a corporate problem of their own making and their responsibility to fix. They have lied so much, I do not owe then a single iota of trust.

If they want to be trusted, they should be truthful. It’s really that simple

From the blog’s site:

About the blog

Welcome to red.anthropic.com, the home for research from Anthropic’s Frontier Red Team (and occasionally other teams at Anthropic) on what frontier AI models mean for national security. We provide evidence-based analysis about AI’s implications for cybersecurity, biosecurity, and autonomous systems.

This is Anthropic paid people, peddling Anthropic successes…

Correct.

There may have been a time where advertising was honest but nowadays, the Help Desk rule applies “never believe a customer unless they are confessing”.

If a company is making a claim that benefits them, you cannot believe it without independent, third party corroboration. If they are confessing to wrong doing, you should assume it’s 10x worse than what they are stating.

It is 100% just advertising…

You cannot believe a single word any of the AI companies are peddling unless they are verified by unencumbered third parties