Maybe. The thing is, the hackers are running hundreds of different tools using a wide variety of techniques. An software maker can't necessarily afford to purchase and run the same number of "white hat" tools. These things aren't generally free. And even if they are, they still take time and effort to weed through all the false positives. The hackers, on the other hand, only need to find *one* vulnerability that wasn't found by the software maker's scanners.

To be fair, this is a different kind of security than the researchers studied.

When it is said that "security by obscurity" is no security at all, it's referring to security *locks* that are meant to bar entry to those who are unauthenticated and/or unauthorized, but allow entry to those with the right credentials.

Security by obscurity arguably *does* work better when it comes to vulnerability scans. If AI can't read the source code, it will have a harder time discovering vulnerabilities caused by bad coding patterns.

Apparently I am. But I *don't* disrespect people for their religious beliefs, even if they differ from mine.

You are the one who claimed that respect and compassion for other humans was important, and you claimed that religious people don't have it. So by your own standard, if religious people respect your right to exist and your basic human rights, then they are living up to the standard you claim is important to you.

You claim I am dishonest, but you have not pointed to anything untruthful that I said. You claim without evidence that I am stupid.

I call BS. You are showing nothing but disrespect, and you are name-calling rather than addressing facts.

What is your specific worry, in light of history?

Each new wave of technology has tended to sort itself out pretty quickly. Some were more trouble-prone than others, like the introduction of the factory, which brought out opposition from the Luddites. But even in that scenario, it wasn't very many years before the world reached equilibrium again.

You are right that the AI transition is chaotic, as is every new automation technology. This is to be expected, and unavoidable. But if history repeats itself (or at least rhymes), things will sort themselves out fairly quickly.

From the article:

Clearly, there is more depth to the article than just people pretending to be religious. But the author does acknowledge that this is a factor. And he reinforces it by emphasizing that he is discussing only religion's most dogmatic, fundamentalist forms, not religion as a whole.

Now, where were with with regard to respect and compassion? I certainly don't see it in you. Yet you are quick to judge me because I am "religious."

I based my philosophy on history, some of which I already shared.

We've been automating things for a long, long time. We've had technology bubbles, we've had whole classes of workers forced to find new lines of work. And people did it. Hardly anybody in the US is a farmer any more, hardly anybody is a factory worker. And literally nobody does accounting on paper ledgers, or has a secretary type up memos for them. Each of these professions included millions of people, and the jobs in those professions are largely gone, and yet pretty much anybody who wants a job, still has one.

Also, people have been worried about "thinking machines" since 1964 when IBM had many people worried. Thomas J. Watson said, “A lot of people will tell you that computers are going to take over our life. [But I have] never thought of them as anything more than a rather sophisticated tool to eliminate laborious, repetitive thinking.”

Now here we are again, worried about a new breed of "thinking machines" 60 years later. AI is an excellent tool to eliminate laborious, repetitive thinking.

Got it, so you base your philosophy on a movie. You do understand that movies aren't real, right?

The only thing you just proved, is that you have no idea what Lucene is. Well, and that you can contradict yourself in a single post (AI isn't that impressive, and AI is going to put us all out of work).

You seem to be lacking in respect and compassion for me, a religious person. And given what you said about religious people and compassion and respect, that makes *you* a hypocrite, and no better than your human brothers and sisters who happen to be religious.

Yes, agreed. And there will be plenty of people, especially executives, who think it's acceptable to just accept what AI says.

This is like saying, "Think how much worse it will get when robots control all of manufacturing!"

Robots are everywhere in manufacturing, but they certainly don't *control* it. Somebody's instructions are behind every robot action.

AI is no different. Somebody is behind every AI action. Even if you turn it loose and let it run for days "on its own", somebody still gave it the instructions to do what it's doing.

AI isn't magic, it's a power tool. It's not sentient.

That's not in fact what your article says. What it says is that some who *claim* to have religion, are actually pretending and don't do what their religion teaches.

Anybody can claim to be religious. It doesn't make them religious.

These vocal warnings from Anthropic seem to me like nothing more than an underhanded advertising campaign. "Our AI is so powerful, we are very worried about what it might do!" And now, "We want to make sure that our AI has a moral compass!"

This looks like slick marketing to me.

Your experiences aren't surprising. However, one issue is that you seem to be using ChatGPT (web?) to do this. If you use an IDE integrated with AI, such as Cursor or Visual Studio Code + GitHub Copilot, you will likely get much better results. This is because every time you give it a prompt, it uses the existing code as context, even if it "forgets" what you prompted it earlier.