>muh AI
>>107078487its all narrative crafting to pump up the value of a whole heap of not much at all
It is really a bad practice and bad manners to publicly shame someone in the npc internet and space. It is nigger behavior.
>>107078487>LMAOThat's as far as I got.
>>107078487Here's the "paper": https://web.archive.org/web/20250708174552/https://cams.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/Safe-CAMS-MIT-Article-Final-4-7-2025-Working-Paper.pdfAuthors:>Michael Siegel>Principal Research Scientist>Director, Cybersecurity at MIT Sloan>Massachusetts Institute of Technology>msiegel@mit.edu>Sander Zeijlemaker>Research Affiliate, Cybersecurity at MIT Sloan>Massachusetts Institute of Technology>szeijl@mit.edu>Vidit Baxi>Co-Founder & CISO>Safe Security>Sharavanan Raajah>Threat Researcher>Safe Security
>>107078499it's not only that. these retarded "researchers" (the couple of pajeets mentioned in >>107078618) want to build a reputation by jumping on the latest fad.the good thing about infosec is that people in the industry are so autistic and highly technical that they won't let shit like this pass. hell, people used to pwn and expose liars as a way to tell them to fuck off. that doesn't happen these days (afaik), but exposing these faggots works the same.
>>107078487>academia grifts yet again to get that grantNews at 11.
these schools need to be humiliated properly. the worst part is that the chairs of departments are going to use AI to summarize the article, the AI will realize the article is about AI, and the AI will gas it up and it'll get published.
>>107080026it's not only academia. in this case there seems to be a jeet wannabe cybersecurity company behind this paper. well, looks like they destroyed their reputation kek
>>107081217>destroyed their reputation>implying shillcademia had any to begin with
>>107081240read my post again, read this >>107078618 and try understanding what is being said.
does anyone know what "MIT Sloan" is?
>>107078578what would be your solution? silently accept everything because it is labeled as a scientific research?
>>107078578some people need to be humiliated publicly like this before they stop
>>107078487>cries>offers no solutionsAnother epic blogpost shared. Thanks OP.
>>107083829solutions to what? to the fact that people and "reputable" universities publish made up bullshit?did you miss the part where the authors took the "research" paper down? kek
>>107083888An appropriate approach to the methodology as an example, obviously. All this AI cultist did was cry about how substandard the research that lead to the claim he doesn't like was while completely neglecting to mention the entire technology is a black box ergo unorthodox approach is required to glean anything.
>linkedinfacebook for corpo shills
>>107083829>>107083940>t.botmessage to the operator: your shit doesn't make sense.
>>107084009Not an argument. Stay mad magic toaster shitter.
>>107083940you misunderstood the whole thing, retard. there was no research here, the paper was made up LLM-generated bullshit and the authors are a couple of pajeets.the actual researchers are the ones that killed the paper, simply by showing how obviously fake it is. how do they know it's fake? because THEY ARE MALWARE ANALYSTS AND HAVE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.have you ever reverse-engineered anything in your retarded life?if you are going to talk about some topic, at least read about it before vomiting your worthless opinions, retard.
>>107084100All he did was postulate a lack of standard studying a black box without providing an example of what he perceives as the standard. Keep screeching tho, big fan. >AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LE ACTUALRESEARCHER SPOKEEEEEEEEEEN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANALYSIS
>>107081240>implying your retard kneejerk reaction against education needs to be taken seriously.
>>107084125they literally published made up bullshit. how is that not a lack of standard, you fucking RETARD?you have a link to the paper in this thread. go read it and tell me what their sources and actual proof of "AI-powered ransomware" are, you brainlet.do you really want to discuss anything seriously? why are asking people who have nothing to do with academia, and have actual technical experience in the field to propose standards when some "prestigious" college allows people to publish whatever they want, as long as they pay? that means 0 (zero) standards as long as there is money, of course.
>>107084215>means 0 (zero) standards as long as there is money, of course.Okay, then keeping crying on linkedin and let's see how far that takes you.. i am sorry "hurrr this is shit" doesn't impress on me as you expect it to you, but whining without offering solutions is called blogging.>they literally published made up bullshit. how is that not a lack of standardBecause the technology is a black box. Plus, all research is made up bullshit this is why we have frameworks and standards.>actual proofLike what a written confession from international criminals?
>>107084277>keeping crying on linkedin and let's see how far that takes youwhat? again, are you mentally challenged or something? they took down the "paper", and their reputation is fucked. how do you think things work in infosec? do you think you can claim whatever you want and no one will give a shit?>you>your??? idgaf, I'm actually laughing about this. this isn't drama being started, it's literally over for the scammers.>Because the technology is a black box>Like what a written confession from international criminals?I see, you really have no clue about anything and just want to talk. are you bored or something? I should have kept ignoring your dumb ass.
>>107084362You stupid motherfucker. We're talking past each other and you keep huffing your own farts because you're too arrogant to perceive a world that exists outside of your own head movie.My only point is crying about lack of standards without defining one in the same post is cringe and gay, like you. It has nothing to do with whatever the fuck happened to the creators of the paper.>kept ignoring Works for me whenever you're ready to stop reddit spacing at me.
>>107078618Two jews, and two jeets?
