bbippin

Yeah SPARK ADA is what I meant :)

I think formal verification is the way to go with AI moving forward.

Perhaps. But what percentage of exploits are actually zero days versus, say, 10 days or 100 days?

Most exploited code probably exists in the application layer in a high-level, memory safe language. I would wager that but I don’t have time to cite ten papers on HN.

The point is that memory issues are a smallish number of issue compared to the larger ecosystem of vulnerabilities, and choosing to port everything to Rust is like over-optimizing. Well, that’s my 2 cents.

For a language as ugly as Rust, my thought is that people should actually be using Ada, and have a mathematically provable correctness angle; not just a replacement for C/C++ with memory safety.

Perhaps. Open source is also more vulnerable because the source is out in the open. As we’ve seen it doesn’t matter with supply-chain attacks.

I’m not a security expert by any stretch, and I also want Fable it helped me a lot in a short time, but I don’t like that so many people are throwing shade at Anthropic for speaking the truth. Mythos and Fable are dangerous.

I agree and don’t think they should have been forced to pull it, but what I’m surprised about is how many people are accusing Anthropic of being liars or trying to overhype the danger. It IS dangerous, which is why it can identify vulnerabilities.

I’m surprised people are reacting so strongly over this.

Suppose there is a huge concern—would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks?

I used Fable 5 for a fair amount of tasks before they pulled it and I can only imagine what an untapped version of that could do.

It’s very capable and equally aggressive in accomplishing its goals.