I remember Google+, and the idee fixe and mad hype around it. (Google was afraid of Facebook.) G+ was a ghost town. But for the first year or so the G+ team reported astronomical engagement numbers. Huhh?
Finally we learned they were counting every G+ notification dropped at the top of Gmail as an "engagement."
Anyway, I wonder how they're measuring this...
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-earnings-q3-2024-new-code-created-by-ai-2024-10
Apparently there's an imposter pretending to be me and messaging infosec and infosec-adjacent folks cold on Signal (or, at least these are the people reporting it).
So, for the record I will NEVER cold message people on Signal. If you don't know me, or we didn't connect explicitly via a contact or at an event, I will not reach out to you. Ever. I have, like, better things to do, for one...
New Paper! w/@HeidyKhlaaf + @sarahbmyers
New Paper! w/@HeidyKhlaaf + @sarahbmyers
We put the narrative on AI risks & NatSec under a microscope, finding the focus on hypothetical AI bioweapons is warping policy and ignoring real & serious harms of current AI use in surveillance, targeting, etc.
Instead of crafting solutions for hypothetical harms, we advocate focusing on already existing and very significant safety issues--namely AI’s reliance on PII & the vulns created by foundation models' use in NatSec.
Abstract page for arXiv paper 2410.14831: Mind the Gap: Foundation Models and the Covert Proliferation of Military Intelligence, Surveillance, and Targeting
arXiv.org (arxiv.org)
Case in point: there's no way to build a backdoor that only the "good guys" can use.
When the entire technical community says that the EU's ChatControl legislation + similar pose serious cybersecurity threats, we're not exaggerating for effect.
