Anyone else getting tired of all the click bait articles regarding PoisonGPT, WormGPT, etc without them ever providing any sort of evidence to back up their claims?
They’re always talking about how the models are so good and can write malware but damn near every GPT model I’ve seen can barely write basic code - no shot it’s writing actually valuable malware, not to mention FUD malware as some are claiming.
Thoughts?
Ai can definately write code. Just not without some level of supervision. Take for example, its possibly to develop a basic game using chat gpt to code modules for the game, while the “programmer” is in charge of interconnecting and telling chatgpt to make some revisons after they reach some problem. Code generation isnt outright autonomous as of the moment.
As for malware, yeah you would probably need a trained database on actual malware code to get gpt to a level on generating (really, its probably going to replicate) malware code, but the problem is that if malware codebase is public, there are already likely security patches for said exploits.
I think that’s what dark trace did for their ai cyber security engine. Is it effective? My budy has two servers exactly the same one triggers on dark trace all the time, the other doesn’t. Dark trace, can’t tell him what’s wrong with it or why it’s triggering.
I dont know as im not someone deep into cyber security or anything, but the idea makes sense. Their idea is having a machine learn whats “normal traffic” in a system and react when abnormal traffic arrives.
Their being darktraces security.
Yeah, I ignore all GPT articles now. The point that really turned me off was an article claiming that ChatGPT wrote a browser extension to add subtitles to YouTube videos, only to find that all ChatGPT did was provide an extension template with a comment “add subtitles API here.” That’s hardly better than just downloading the extension templates Google and Mozilla already offer.