There's an incentive to blame "Chinese/Russian state sponsored actors" because it makes them less culpable than "we got owned by a rando".

It's like the inverse of "nobody got fired for using IBM" -- "nobody can blame you for getting hacked by superspies". So, in the absence of any evidence, it's entirely possible they have no idea who did it and are reaching for the most convenient label.

▲

JKCalhoun 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's fair. If the actor (and it's a Chinese state actor here) is what is being questioned as "bullshit" then that should be the discourse in the article and in this thread.

Instead the lack of a paper trail from Anthropic seems to be having people questioning the whole event?

▲

hnthrowaway747 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, and anyone without even needing much evidence to do so.

It’s allowed in the current day and time to criticize someone else for not providing evidence, even when that evidence would make it easier for the attackers to tune their attack to prevent being identified, and everyone will be like “Yeah, I’m mad, too! Anthropic sucks!” When in the process that only creates friction for the only company that’s spent significant ongoing effort to prevent an AI disasters by trying to be the responsible leader.

I’ve really had my fill of the current climate where people are quick to criticize an easy target just because they can rally anger. Anyone can rally anger. If you must rally anger, it should be against something like hypocrisy, not because you just get mad at things that everyone else hates.

▲

dangus 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

State sponsorship can include the state looking the other way.

▲

spopejoy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not really? APTs would seem to be either criminal enterprises or state-sponsored because SOMEBODY has to be paying the big bucks.

So yes, probably 100% of criminal enterprises are paying off officials, but if that's the definition of "state sponsored" then the term loses any meaning.

EDIT I guess there's also "legit" businesses like Palantir/NSO group, but I would argue any firm like that is effectively state-sponsored as they are usually revolving doors with NSA-type agencies, the military etc.

▲

brookst 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So all attacks anywhere are state sponsored?

▲

oarsinsync 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> > State sponsorship can include the state looking the other way.

> So all attacks anywhere are state sponsored?

There's a difference between a deliberate decision to look away, and unawareness through lack of oversight.

You steal candy from a store. There's a difference between the security guard seeing you and deliberately looking away, compared to just not seeing you at all.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jsnell 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There's an incentive to blame "Chinese/Russian state sponsored actors" because it makes them less culpable than "we got owned by a rando".

But they didn't get hacked by anyone. I don't see how that applies.