Sometimes, yes. But usually, as a security researcher, you usually sold to brokers. The brokers made the vulnerability into a reliable exploit. That is whst they then sold to agencies. For a markup of course. The industry was in a tough spot already the past years. Now AI is shaking it up even more.

Reminds me a lot of this LW piece. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/znbfRXHq285nS7NAh/the-terrar...

But that is not because it's less efficient. With the Canadian system being socialzed and 20k$ being just 8% of your income it is to be expected that you would pay moch more than the median person into the system.

The card processors policies are anti-competetive (albeit legal) abuses of their oligopoly. Reporting small vendors to them does not seem right to me.

I find single column much easier to read than dual. Though the line spacing is too much in this concrete example.

These emergent behaviours in large-scale agent collaborations are at the same time fascinating and terrifying.

I think GP was referring to the industrial revolution and shares your sentiment.

I agree with your sentiment, doing security auditing for old-school entprise and the like. I'd revise the timeline ti 3-10 years though. Eith how much AI can change productvity companies that don't adopt it will be in a tougher spot much more quickly than with new tech in the past.

The benchmark table is manipulative, borderline lying through statistics. In every line the top performing cell is marked red. Except the line where Sol leads, there it is marked in gray.

I think that’s indicating that it’s only slightly higher.

I would be very surprised if the only row where OpenAI leads was coincidentally colored differently. I'm sure they have an official reasoning for it. But this communication is dishonest.

AI hardware is much, much more powerhungry than traditional processors though. I can understand their reasoning.

Sure, but it's still surprising that 1/3 of all data centers in the whole world are dedicated to that one use.