What’s worse is that this is part of a larger strategy of scaring the public to get regulatory capture

It’s just gross and manipulative. You have no moat, get over it

pAtCh ThE pLaNeT today, tomorrow it's creepy rent-seeking behavior

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do you prefer they not engage in helping finding vulns at all? Do you not think there are parts of the company interested in security and doing it for the sake of that?

I feel like taking every action these companies take as part of some larger strategy is kind of conspiracy-minded.

▲

digitaltrees 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a false binary. There are a range of other options. They could voluntarily log every action with a clear warning that users are financially and criminally liable for use of AI. The company could convert to a partnership like law firms and investment banks used to be so that the executives are personally liable for harm their products cause. Hard to imagine they would be as flippant with risk if they would lose everything in the event of a Cyber attack. We could set up a parallel internet for AI that is physically separate from human internet and limit ai to text messages with all tool execution on the sandboxed internet.

I could give 15 more examples of things that could be done other than “make the world use our tools to patch software”.

▲

kafrofrite a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Disclaimer: I work as a sec engineer and part of my job includes finding vulnerabilities.

I think the effort is misplaced. We should be exploring ways to make our systems more resilient and I would expect those companies* to focus on that front. Vulnerability research is important, and we should aim to remove as many bugs as we can from our codebases but the pace of software development is increasing and so is the introduction of new bugs.

* I would also expect an increase on relevant research regarding novel paradigms of securing systems.

▲

redanddead a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Why didn't OAI go back to non-profit again?

Where's the conspiracy. There is no moat. The technology is easily reproducible. Deepseek unwound an entire business model yesterday.

▲

willy_k a day ago | parent | next [-]

Mind elaborating on that Deepseek point? I am aware of the USG decision, what exactly do you mean?

▲

orangedog a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The conspiracy theory is suggesting this is part of a larger strategy. I'm just saying it's a big enough company with a wide enough range of beliefs that I find it pretty likely that the direct motives for this weren't to enable regulatory capture.

But they could be, that's why it's a conspiracy theory.

	▲	fn-mote a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Suppose it goes like this: part of the company clearly benefits from “AI scary” publicity. Other parts of the company want to support the public. The first part of the company backs up the second in internal politics. Do you consider this a conspiracy? Just seems like “good business” to me. It doesn’t seem as clean as you want to make it seem, though.
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]