←back to thread

645 points helloplanets | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.244s | source
Show context
gtirloni ◴[] No.45005076[source]
Nobody could have predicted this /s

Joke aside, it's been pretty obvious since the beginning that security was an afterthought for most "AI" companies, with even MCP adding secure features after the initial release.

replies(1): >>45005124 #
brookst ◴[] No.45005124[source]
How does this compare to the way security was implemented by early websites, internet protocols, or telecom systems?
replies(5): >>45005206 #>>45005207 #>>45005488 #>>45007680 #>>45010326 #
1. add-sub-mul-div ◴[] No.45005488[source]
1. It's novel, meaning we have time to stop it before it becomes normalized.

2. It's a whole new category of threat vectors across all known/unknown quadarants.

3. Knowing what we know now vs. then, it's egregious and not naive, contextualizing how these companies operate and treat their customers.

4. There's a whole population of sophisticated predators ready to pounce instantly, they already have the knowledge and tools unlike in the 1990s.

5. Since it's novel, we need education and attention for this specifically.

Should I go on? Can we finally put to bed the thought-limiting midwit take that AI's flaws and risks aren't worth discussion because past technology has had flaws and risks?