I would be interested in which notable security researchers you can find to take the other side of this argument. I don't know anything about the "AI Security Institute", but they're saying something broadly mirrored by security researchers. From what I can see, the "debate" in the actual practitioner community is whether frontier models are merely as big a deal as fuzzing was, or something signficantly bigger. Fuzzing was a profound shift in vulnerability research.

(Fan of your writing, btw.)

▲

j2kun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's less that I think they would take the other side of the argument, than that they would lend some credence to the content of the analysis. For example, I would not particularly trust a bunch of AI researchers to come up with a representative set of CTF tasks, which seems to be the basis of this analysis.

	▲	tptacek 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, you might be right about this particular analysis! The sense I have from talking to people at the labs is that they're really just picking deliberately diverse and high-profile targets to see what the models are capable of.

▲

VorpalWay 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> but they're saying something broadly mirrored by security researchers.

You might well be right, it is not an area I know much of or work in. But I'm a fan of reliable sources for claims. It is far to easy to make general statements on the internet that appear authorative.