Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

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.

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.

There's an incentive to blame "Chinese/Russian state sponsored actors" because it makes them less culpable than "we got owned by a rando".

It's like the inverse of "nobody got fired for using IBM" -- "nobody can blame you for getting hacked by superspies". So, in the absence of any evidence, it's entirely possible they have no idea who did it and are reaching for the most convenient label.

That's fair. If the actor (and it's a Chinese state actor here) is what is being questioned as "bullshit" then that should be the discourse in the article and in this thread.

Instead the lack of a paper trail from Anthropic seems to be having people questioning the whole event?

State sponsorship can include the state looking the other way.

So all attacks anywhere are state sponsored?