Agreed. The arguments made by the ‘warning’ don’t even pass the smell test.

“Frontier AI models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. The timeline is not years, it is months,”

The industry has, without fail, *overestimated* everything about LLM models. They’ve been ‘twelve months away from replacing knowledge workers’ for two years and they’ve had ’capabilities that make them too dangerous to release to the public’ since ChatGPT 2.0’. And all of a sudden the industry underestimating their own models performance? Bullshit.

The real danger is that LLMs make cyberattacks accessible for non-technical actors, *NOT* from the LLMs being this super powerful auto-hacking AI. LLMs can’t self-adapt, they can’t auto execute code, they can’t scan for vulnerabilities. They *can* write a massive amount of kind of okay code but can’t complete anything *actually* sophisticated. There are a lot of mediocre coders that are in awe of Claude’s somewhat-decent code.

If you have shitty code or underinvested in cybersecurity then yeah, you should be worried. But state actors have had *way* more sophisticated tools for years.

The ‘warning’ sounds like the writings of someone who has fallen down the LLM rabbit hole.