Comment by jmkni
3 months ago
That whole article felt like "Claude is so good Chinese hackers are using it for espionage" marketing fluff tbh
3 months ago
That whole article felt like "Claude is so good Chinese hackers are using it for espionage" marketing fluff tbh
Reminds me of how when the Playstation 2 came out, Sony started planting articles about how it was so powerful that the Iraqi government was buying thousands of them to turn into a supercomputer (including unnamed military officials bringing up Sony marketing points). https://www.wnd.com/2000/12/7640/
Is there any compelling evidence that this was marketing done by Sony? Yes, the sniff test does not pass for me about the government officials advertising the device, but this Reddit thread[1] makes the whole story seem plausible. America and Japan really did impose restrictions on shipping to Iraq and people did eventually chain PS3s together for cheap computing.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l3hp2i/did_s...
Apple used similar marketing tactics with G4 since it was "so powerful" it was under restricted export control, where in reality it was an outdated regulation that needed an update.
1 reply →
I remember when Sony doing video game related presentations couldn't help but have some marketing about how soon the Playstation 2 processor would be everywhere, your TV, your refrigerator.
At the time I was thinking "Why would my fridge need a pricey expensive processor?"
Many years later I still don't need that.
Ironically the US millitary actually did this with the Playstation 3
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster
But it was that good for the price point. And you could run Linux on it. That was the Beowulf cluster era. Lots of universities were doing that.
You may be mixing up the PS2 and PS3. The PS3 found some marginal use in computing clusters; the PS2 did not.
1 reply →
I also would believe that they fell into the trap of being so good at making Claude they now think they are good at everything and so why hire an infosec person we can write our own report! And that’s why their report violates so many norms because they didn’t know them.
They don't need to hire anyone. They just prompted Claude to write for them. :-)
Leaning in the "China Menace" will also give you points with the USA Gov.
I can see that they can detect an attack using their tools, but tracing it to an organization "sponsored" by the Chinese government looks like bullshit marketing. How they did it? A Google search? I have the Chinese Gov in higher grounds. They wouldn't be easily detected by a startup without experience in infosec.
If we’re sharing vibes, “our product is dangerous” seems like an unusual sales tactic outside the defense industry. I’m doubtful that’s how it works?
Meanwhile, another reason to make a press release is that you’ll be criticized for the coverup if you don’t. Also, it puts other companies on notice that maybe they should look for this?
>unusual sales tactic outside the defense industry. I’m doubtful that’s how it works?
given the valuation and money these companies burn through marketing wise they basically need to play by the same logic as defense companies. They're all running on "we're reinventing the world and building god" to justify their spending, "here's a chatbot (like 20 other ones) that going to make you marginally more productive" isn't really going to cut it at this point, they're in too deep
Yeah. You'd think nuclear power would be incredibly popular, given that "our product is dangerous" is a apparently genius marketing strategy. After all, if it can make a whole region of ukraine uninhabitable and be weaponized to turn people into shadows on pavement, it can surely power your fridge. Yet oddly companies making nuclear reactors always market them as being very safe instead of leaning into the danger.
Are there a lot of commercially available nuclear reactors competing for consumers, or is it more of a niche market, like high end designer goods, custom made spectacles etc, that don't generally rely on public advertising campaigns?
I've seen an absurd amount of AI advertising, and very little nuclear reactor advertising, but maybe your point is valid and I'm just not the target audience.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
To be fair the data is very clear on this: it is one of the safest energy sources
I think it might be a "our product IS dangerous but look we are on top of it!" kind of deal. Still leaves a funny taste either way.
The bulk of OpenAI and Anthropic’s statements about doomsday AGI and AI safety in general also present the company as sole ethical gatekeeper of the technology, whom we must trust and protect lest its unscrupulous rivals win the AI race. So this article is very much in line with that marketing strategy.
I'm baffled at the assumption that concrete and specific evidence of international (presumably) hostile espionage that is currently being enacted using X and Y software and Z specific techniques, would be publicly released in real time.
I can't think of a single situation in which it would be reasonable to assume that.
It's not like we even get governments or corporations saying 'oh hey, just raising the alarm that bad people are using this Photoshop feature to create fake cheques which they're then depositing into their accounts, so bank staff, be on the lookout!' Because yeah, that's a Photoshop ad.
And it's not like espionage is new, like the Chinese side have been ramping up for decades now, or like there has ever been an expectation that companies with suspicions or evidence of international subterfuge should... should lay it all out in a public report? Is that really what the article is expecting?
I don't even think the UK has got around to officially acknowledging Funny Business in UK-Argentinian relations in any documents or events during the 80's, and the secret was rather given away around the time we went to all out literal war. We know things must have built up before the day war was declared, but nobody expected every escalation of diplomatic unrest to be communicated to the entire nation in real time. Because that would be deranged.
Idk, maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the article. I feel like it isn't in my field, although I'm not entirely sure what field specific knowledge I'm missing to make sense of this.
I would very much like to agree with the sentiment, I'm always down for some AI-dissing and a bit of tin foil hat Big Tech Analyses.
But I couldn't get much more than "This company is lying because it didn't give me any Chinese State secrets, let alone explain how to get stars secrets using their software,' which feels so censored as to be pointless, or just kinda wildly petty and ill informed