I’m surprised it took this long. The world is crazy over AI, meaning everyone and their grandma is likely trying to do something like this right now. The fact it took like 3 years for an actual vulnerability “discovered by AI” (actually it seems it was discovered by the researcher filtering out hundreds of false positives?) tells me it sucks ass at this particular task (it also seems to be getting worse, judging by the benchmarks?)
No, it’s not. It’s a word predictor trained on most of the web. On its own it’s a pretty bad search engine because it can’t reliably produce the training data (that would be overfitting). What it’s kind of good at is predicting what the result would look like if someone asked a somewhat novel question. But then it’s not that good at producing the actual answer to that question, only imitating what the answer would look like.
100%. It’s a super fast web crawler. These are buzz words capitalists throw around to make some more money. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the bullshit that anthropic was throwing around about claude threatening to “blackmail” employees if they took it offline. Lmao.
Calling it a web crawler is just innacurate. You can give it access to a web search engine, which is how the “AI search engines” work, but LLMs can’t access the internet on their own. They’re completely self-contained unless you give them tools that let them do other things.
I would agree calling it a web crawler is inaccurate, but disagree with the reasoning; I think it’s more in the sense that calling an LLM a web crawler is akin to calling a search index a web crawler; in other words, an LLM could be considered a weird version of a search index.
Yeah, I can see that. It’s definitely more like a search index than a web crawler. It’s not great at being a search index though, since it can synthesize ideas but can’t reliably tell you where it got them from in the first place.
I’m surprised it took this long. The world is crazy over AI, meaning everyone and their grandma is likely trying to do something like this right now. The fact it took like 3 years for an actual vulnerability “discovered by AI” (actually it seems it was discovered by the researcher filtering out hundreds of false positives?) tells me it sucks ass at this particular task (it also seems to be getting worse, judging by the benchmarks?)
All ai is is a super fast web search with algorithms for some reasoning. It’s not black magic.
No, it’s not. It’s a word predictor trained on most of the web. On its own it’s a pretty bad search engine because it can’t reliably produce the training data (that would be overfitting). What it’s kind of good at is predicting what the result would look like if someone asked a somewhat novel question. But then it’s not that good at producing the actual answer to that question, only imitating what the answer would look like.
That’s why we really shouldn’t call them “AI” imo
100%. It’s a super fast web crawler. These are buzz words capitalists throw around to make some more money. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the bullshit that anthropic was throwing around about claude threatening to “blackmail” employees if they took it offline. Lmao.
Calling it a web crawler is just innacurate. You can give it access to a web search engine, which is how the “AI search engines” work, but LLMs can’t access the internet on their own. They’re completely self-contained unless you give them tools that let them do other things.
I would agree calling it a web crawler is inaccurate, but disagree with the reasoning; I think it’s more in the sense that calling an LLM a web crawler is akin to calling a search index a web crawler; in other words, an LLM could be considered a weird version of a search index.
Yeah, I can see that. It’s definitely more like a search index than a web crawler. It’s not great at being a search index though, since it can synthesize ideas but can’t reliably tell you where it got them from in the first place.
Firmly agree with you on that.