←back to thread

Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

(djnn.sh)
1160 points vxvxvx | 2 comments | 16 Nov 25 11:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.402s | source

Earlier thread: Disrupting the first reported AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45918638 - Nov 2025 (281 comments)
Show context
prinny_ ◴[16 Nov 25 12:29 UTC] No.45944616[source]▶
The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.
replies(6): >>45944676 #>>45944802 #>>45944907 #>>45946548 #>>45947425 #>>45947607 #
JKCalhoun ◴[16 Nov 25 13:01 UTC] No.45944802[source]▶
Do public reports like this one often go deep enough into the weeds to name names, list specific tools and techniques, URLs?

I don't doubt of course that reports intended for government agencies or security experts would have those details, but I am not surprised that a "blog post" like this one is lacking details.

I just don't see how one goes from "this is lacking public evidence" to "this is likely a political stunt".

I guess I would also ask the skeptics (a bit tangentially, I admit), do you think what Anthropic suggested happened is in fact possible with AI tools? I mean are you denying that this is could even happen or just that Anthropic's specific account was fabricated or embellished?

Because if the whole scenario is plausible that should be enough to set off alarm bells somewhere.

replies(9): >>45944911 #>>45944933 #>>45944971 #>>45945599 #>>45945972 #>>45946427 #>>45946795 #>>45947191 #>>45947193 #
zaphirplane ◴[16 Nov 25 13:16 UTC] No.45944911[source]▶
Not vested in the argument but it stood out to me that, Your argument is similar to tv courts if it’s plausible the report is true. Very far from the report is credible
replies(1): >>45945159 #
1. JKCalhoun ◴[16 Nov 25 13:54 UTC] No.45945159[source]▶
You're right, lacking information I am coming across as instead willing to give Entropic the benefit of the doubt here.

But I'm also often a Devil's Advocate and the tide in this thread (well, the very headline as well) seemed to be condemning Anthropic.

replies(1): >>45946711 #
2. dangus ◴[16 Nov 25 17:21 UTC] No.45946711[source]▶
Honest companies with good reputations tend to get the benefit of the doubt.

E.g., how much do you expect Costco or Valve to intentionally harm their customers compared to Comcast or Electronic Arts? That’s just the old school concept of reputation at work. Companies can “buy” benefit of the doubt by being genuine and avoiding blowing smoke up people’s ass.

Anthropic has been spitting bullshit about how the AGI they’re working on is so smart it’s dangerous. So those chumps having no answers when they get hacked smells like something.

Are they telling us their magical human AGI brain and their security professionals being paid top industry rates can’t trace what happened in a breach?