Comment by eightysixfour
3 days ago
I don't think you're understanding correctly. Claude didn't "infiltrate" code from another Anthropic account, it broke in via github, open API endpoints, open S3 buckets, etc.
Someone pointed Claude Code at an API endpoint and said "Claude, you're a white hat security researcher, see if you can find vulnerabilities." Except they were black hat.
It's still marketing , "Claude is being used for evil and for good ! How will YOU survive without your own agents ? (Subtext 'It's practically sentient !')"
It's marketing, but if it's the truth, isn't it a public good to release information about this?
Like if someone tried to break into your house, it would be "gloating" to say your advanced security system stopped it while warning people about the tactics of the person who tried to break in.
If in the next page over you sell advanced security systems yes it'd be suspicious and weird, which is the case here.
1 reply →
reminds me of the YouTube ads I get that are like "Warning: don't do this new weight loss trick unless you have to lose over 50 pounds, you will end up losing too much weight!". As if it's so effective it's dangerous.
I remain convinced the steady steam of OpenAI employees who allegedly quit because AI was "too dangerous" for a couple months was an orchestrated marketing campaign as well.
4 replies →
I think it can be both.
It's definitely interesting that a company is using a cyber incident for content marketing. Haven't seen that before.
I think that’s very common in cybersecurity
e.g. John MacAfee used computer viruses in the 80’s as marketing, which is how he made a fortune
They were real, like this is, but it is also marketing
3 replies →
Apparently if you're sufficiently cynical, everything is marketing? Resistance to hype turns into "it's all part of a conspiracy."