| Well, and I am genuinely curious here, wouldn't defender and attacker capabilities being accessible equally by both parties be objectively worse than having a limited amount of privileged defenders? Of course, you could have every piece of code go through an adversarial audit before it's pushed, but in an equal world you would have to always devote as much or more resources to this as your attackers. And historically speaking people just don't do this in practice. In the scenario where only "verified" defenders get access to the best cyber capabilities, unverified plebian defenders and blackhats are on the same level exactly as described above, there's just also a few defenders that get to run things on godmode. So to me, it seems that the only result of frontier cyber capabilities is removing a defender advantage. Although that advantage is not for everyone, it can only exists as long as capabilities are unequally distributed. Am I missing something? |
| |
| ▲ | Avamander 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Well, and I am genuinely curious here, wouldn't defender and attacker capabilities being accessible equally by both parties be objectively worse than having a limited amount of privileged defenders? Well, not really. Because those privileged defenders will never be able to predict what needs defending. So we have a few privileged "defended" places and the rest is left for privileged attackers to plunder. | | |
| ▲ | stalfie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Privileged attackers?? So that would be career cybersecurity experts with Project Glasswing/Daybreak/Googlewhatever access, using it to perform actual attacks? Because that's what privileged means in this context. Access to frontier models not available to the public. | | |
| ▲ | Avamander 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So that would be career cybersecurity experts with Project Glasswing/Daybreak/Googlewhatever access. Yes. You really think access those models will not be given for offensive operations in each country? Of course they will be. | | |
| ▲ | stalfie 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, seeing as Claude literally snitches on everyday people planning murder and Houthis building rockets I would assume that every user in project Glasswing is heavily and very effectively monitored. I have to admit that I genuinely do not think that what you're hypothesizing is happening right now. I would bet good money that the amount of people with Glasswing access doing actual Blackhat work is currently zero. Perhaps in the future this will change, but even if that is the case, that's still a win for the defenders. Having a time advantage, even for a few months, is still a win. Edit: Actually, the CIA/FBI/NSA/Etc.. does probably have access and are probably trying to hack Iran and so forth, so my comment above is probably technically wrong in that respect. | | |
| ▲ | Avamander 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I would bet good money that the amount of people with Glasswing access doing actual Blackhat work is currently zero. I think it's not "blackhat" in that sense because it's officially sanctioned. Same goes for equivalent models overseas. The only thing these embargos achieve is giving massive nations a huge advantage, but leaves the average country and person exposed. | | |
| ▲ | stalfie 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I edited my comment above before realizing this is what you meant. And its a valid point I concede. Still, I disagree that advantaging this activity is the only thing these embargoes achieve. I would argue that they legitimately also give the Linux kernel, cURL and so on an advantage. And as long as that is true, this still makes it an overall win in my books, even if it also enables officially sanctioned offensive activities. I'm not a US citizen, but I would still rather get pwned by the CIA than both the CIA and Shinyhunters. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tkz1312 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because the people I want to defend against includes those with enough resources to train and fine tune models with strong offensive capabilities themselves. | | |
| ▲ | stalfie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, now that's an interesting point. However, wouldn't those groups just fine tune Kimi K3.1 pro no matter if it's nerfed or not, leaving you in the same position as before? That is, unless the nerf is easier to correct as compared to "upgrading" the models offensive capabilities. So a scenario where it is easy to "restore" offensive capabilities, but hard to "enhance" them beyond the labs best attempt. So is that the world we're living in? |
|
|
