Submitted 4 months ago by j4k3@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
There are tons of technology historically that were implemented with gigantic fundamental flaws which were properly identified and later solved or mitigated. These flaws were openly published and there was a discourse in society about them.
So, unless you can use that knowledge to immediately brick all use of that technology, that flaw is likely less severe than you think.
Can you use an example please? I’m interested
I know of a few that would stop technology development cold. I will not be sharing such information.
There’s no “simple fundamental flaw” in AI that people don’t know about. It bothers me when people who have never thought about x in their life think about x once, make an obvious observation, and then go off acting like nobody else is smart enough to have made that observation. It’s narcissism. It’s annoying.
Please prove me wrong though. I would love to see this grift come crashing down all because you saw something that nobody else saw.
You assume much, and are being an ass in my opinion. Believe it or not, science is not always well funded. If you happen to be curious and have the time, it is possible to explore scientifically or even casually within areas that are not well researched. It is possible to have logic skills even without credentials.
We are not in some final state of technology. Anyone saying such nonsense lacks fundamental logic skills.
I do not care about me. I do not have dogma. I’m not interested in recognition. I am willingly to explore in unique ways both artistically as a professional artist, and out of logical curiosity. I have the tools needed to check my results against a control using unrelated sources. The most recent paper on the subject is something I can recreate but explain far better than that paper.
I could not care less what you ultimately think of me, or anything I say. What I care about is that you’re a decent digital neighbor. To be physically disabled in near total social isolation, and have a place like this as my main interaction with other humans, it is a mean prejudice to have some random digital neighbor make such unsolicited malevolent statements assuming my personal motivations without a shred of evidence or decency to engage in questioning. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you presume a great deal, putting words to my emotions as if you own me.
The person was talking about how certain people annoy them, he may have implied it was you but if you don’t think description matches say so and move on.
But if we’re talking about being a good digital neighbor, you should try and see how your implication is annoying or offensive. There are issues with credentialism but it is not just some arbitrary aristocracy, people put in a lot of work to get there credentials and take pride in them. If you start saying all these experts don’t know what they’re talking about and I found out something they couldn’t is dismissive of all the work those experts put into learning about there field. Like don’t you think doctors get annoyed by all the homeopaths or anti vaxers who dismiss all there work because theyve done there own research?
Publicize it and use my fifteen minutes of fame to snag a tech security gig.
Doesn’t matter, nobody will believe you.
The Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) process:
Discovery: The researcher finds the problem.
Private Notification: The researcher contacts the vendor/owner directly and privately. No public information is released yet.
The Embargo Period: The researcher and vendor agree on a timeframe for the fix (industry standard is often 90 days, popularized by Google Project Zero).
Remediation: The vendor develops and deploys a patch.
Public Disclosure: Once the patch is live (or the deadline expires), the researcher publishes their findings, often assigned a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) ID.
Proof of Concept (PoC): Technical details or code showing exactly how to exploit the flaw may be released to help defenders understand the risk, usually after users have had time to patch.
You say the flaw is "fundamental", suggesting you don't think it can be patched? I guess I'd inform my investment manager during the "private notification" phase as well, then. It's possible you're wrong about its patchability, of course, so I'd recommend carrying on with CVD regardless.
What if you’ve got no credentials, but the flaw is so serious that it will not matter if known.
This is a true hypothetical curiosity. I do not know anything of value. A bunch of people here like to call me crazy, and I’ve rambled on and on many times in ways that likely confirm their notions. A person like this is not likely to fair very well when operating well outside their social caste unless they already have hand holds on the rungs of the ladder above. Still, there are some rather surprising areas of technology without adequate fundamental research. Perhaps it is hypothetically better to have John Conner in the world of Cyberdyne. If someone had killed Apache early, the Internet would not be the same heaven of democracy, though that is not a very good intuitive scope of analogy. Just something to ponder if one were to be in such a situation.
It comes down to whether you can demonstrate this flaw. If you have a way to show it actually working then credentials shouldn't matter.
If your attempts at disclosure are being ignored then check:
Try to resolve those. If the company you're trying to contact is still send your emails to the spam bin, maybe try contacting other people who have done disclosure on issues like this before. If you can convince them then they can use their own credibility to advance the issue.
If that doesn't work then I guess check the "deranged crazy person" things one more time and move on to disclosing it publicly yourself.
in the book “the gods themselves” they presented such a situation and gave the dire answer: no one would listen to you if it meant giving up the good thing.
I legit came here to comment about The Gods Themselves. Stellar novel. Everyone should read it.
Grear points about the commercial pressures on science, cults of personality and perceived intelligence of successful people, too. Rumor has it Asimov wrote the book out of spite for another sci-fi writer who willy-nilly used an impossible isotope in his novel and did not care when corrected.
Not a spoiler: there are trisexual interdimensional trans people.
Nothing. Nobody you could reach and tell, would fairly pay you what that info is worth. If it’s a trillion dollar tech, imagine the series of design, approval, oversight people you’re doing free work for.
Like, imagine it’s Lockheed Martin, and you’re giving a free tip that saves the the executive board’s neck. Laughable idea.
Except maybe it’s a medical thing and the “medicine” would a) not work and b) harm people. Then maybe.
The amount of methods used to inject things into a model is pretty high.
If miscounting the number of Rs in strawberry didn’t crash the economy then nothing will.
Oh please share, so we can take advantage of the crash too.
Short whichever stock would be most impacted, and set my earnings to convert to yuan, and then spread the news as hard as I can
Nvidia is the stock.
Good luck with the timing. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Made 200k in six weeks back pre-split using 2x leverage. Any other play is diminishing returns/opportunity cost. Dumbest thing I ever did.
Unless I’m leveraging 3x+ like an absolute deep fried Twinkie, I’m pretty sure I’m coming out at least neutral.
I’d tell some trusted friends too. Quietly. In person.
Responsible disclosure.
As kolanaki already said, but as a general rule: if it’s simple, probably everybody already knows it.
But if you are sure you discovered something nobody else knows, you can always bet against some companies and tell it to everybody. If you didn’t need internal access to discover it, it’s legal almost everywhere.
If the Global Economy can be destroyed by something a random person can discover in a garage, it’s up to the Global Economy to deal with it.
I share how much AI sucks all the time but no one cares. 🤷♂️
Post about it on Lemmy so that ~7 people will read it.
Looks more like roughly 40 people care which seems pretty accurate in general.
discocactus@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You’d have a moral obligation to rip the bandaid off.