"AI is giving attackers a huge advantage!"

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w Hi, yes. This is me. I am dev, sec, ops, management that has been destroyed making everyone more vulnerable.

Mostly dev, sec & ops... but there was some mild management in there (against my better judgement).

This is exactly the truth. AI is a tool. But it's a tool that has been given some kind of mystical authority over long term thinking.

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@jackryder It's not even a tool though. It's more of a component. Like asbestos in brake pads. Or lead in paint. They made people feel like they were improving the product while in reality they were killing the customers and the environment.

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w Yeah, that's a much better description.

Lead in the paint, asbestos in brake pads...is such a good description. That's exactly right.

So many people thought that stuff was so innocent.

[lycanoid@ieji.de]

@cR0w Yeah but it will protect the children…

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@jackryder Or PFAS in flame retardant, cooking pans, rain gear, etc. Or methanol in moonshine.

[rootwyrm@weird.autos]

@cR0w @jackryder I would go a lot further than that. LLMs are a "tool" in the same sense as chainsawing off your own leg is a "tool."
Except chainsawing off your leg does a shitload less damage.

This isn't lead in the paint where it's safe till the paint starts failing. This is Bhopal including the UCAR response.

[neurovagrant@masto.deoan.org]

@cR0w permission to pop this up on LinkedIn?

:D

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@lycanoid I wish I could tell if you were being genuine or sarcastic, but this is the Internet so... help me out please. 😆

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@neurovagrant Hell yeah. Rile some bros up.

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@rootwyrm @cR0w I mean, I've had people think less of me for my stance on LLMs. I've never held a very strong opinion of them and the more they proliferated the worse they seem to be.

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w I got this great idea, right?
So you know the game darts? You throw a sharp pointy metal spike at a wall... right?

What if... get this... instead of a tiny little bitch spike, we go full 9inches? Have kids throw them just straight in the air... see what happens.

What'cha think?

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@jackryder Sounds like good, wholesome fun to me. I'm in. But only if there's lots of booze and / or weed to make it more interesting.

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w Well hell yeah! What else are we gonna do at the lake? Too rowdy with the bonfire and beer keg to really fish anyway!

[sagefault@infosec.exchange]

@jackryder @cR0w the worst part there is that you're being unfair to lead and asbestos. Those work. They put lead in paint because it is a fantastic white pigment. Asbestos is virtually fire proof.

[mustardfacial@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w @jackryder Asbestos in brake pads and lead in paint did improve the product though. If they weren't so horriffic to human health, we would still be using them. Conversely, I've yet to see an instance where AI has actually improved anything. At best it lets people who are mediocre at their jobs output a higher quantity of mediocre work.

[cr0w@infosec.exchange]

@Mustardfacial @jackryder That's completely fair.

At best it lets people who are mediocre at their jobs output a higher quantity of mediocre work.

But that is the "benefit" as seen by so so many people.

[rootwyrm@weird.autos]

@Mustardfacial @cR0w @jackryder exactly this. And they also were not DIRECTLY harmful. Asbestos wrapped around pipes is totally safe, UNTIL you disturb it or it starts breaking up into fibers. Lead paint is safe as long as it isn't crumbling because the lead content is fully contained.

Slop is immediately harmful for no benefit. There is no safe state. It only APPEARS to increase mediocre output when in fact it only increases DEFECTIVE output.

[adamdavis@mastodon.social]

@cR0w
It briefly amazed me, now it just dismays me. I work for the government. Almost all our management and about half the devs are all-in for AI. I'm older and more sceptical. I've seen a few silver bullets fly by in the past, and I don't have much desire to rearrange my job to prompting, reviewing, and hoping the AI code turns out okay. I should be able to hold out until retirement, but younger folks don't have that luxury.

[timwardcam@c.im]

@cR0w Until recently I worked somewhere that was pressuring developers into using the AI tools it was paying for.

One feature of working for that company was its "security" - pretty well anything you tried to do ran into some roadblock or other because "security".

So I asked the AI: "How do I get round this 'security' feature?"

And instead of reporting me to security it actually gave me an answer. Which, in the nature of code generated by AI, didn't actually work, but it gave me a clue as to how to come up with something that did.

[jackryder@infosec.exchange]

@cR0w @Mustardfacial Yup
and it gives them the justification they need.