前员工爆料黑客用Claude Code搞破坏，还指控Anthropic为钱放松安全，这瓜值得吃。
前Anthropic员工Noah Lebovic透露，黑客更倾向使用Anthropic和OpenAI的补贴AI订阅（如Claude Code、Codex）进行攻击，而非开源权重模型。他提到，开源模型GLM 5.1在渗透测试中比Opus 4.6更强，但黑客仍依赖商业订阅。他还指出，Anthropic存在通过大额合同（如committed spend）降低安全防护的现象，导致系统优化偏向收入而非安全。
Interesting drop from former Anthropic employee: Hackers prefer to use massively subsidized labs AI ...
Interesting drop from former Anthropic employee: Hackers prefer to use massively subsidized labs AI subscriptions for attacks as opposed to open models. Noah Lebovic @NoahLebovic I don't think it's a lack of imagination. I also used to work at Anthropic, think trends will continue, and used to agree with this. But I've changed my mind and now disagree with this take. Open models are already capable enough to do what you described. For example, I used Opus 4.6 to gain access to other folks medical records, hijack bank accounts, etc. back in February. GLM 5.1 is more capable than Opus 4.6 in most pentesting environments, and it came out in April. Despite capable open-weight models existing, the sketchier folks I know are still using a Claude Code or Codex subscription for hacking. (Even well-resourced groups in other countries! They use the grey/black market of discounted Ant/OAI subscription tokens sold through resellers.) So I see most of the materialized risk here as still coming from Anthropic and OpenAI; safeguards aren't sufficient to stop a moderately dedicated actor. The groups I know who are using open-weight models are legitimate offensive security companies. They won't break the rules to use subscription-based pricing, the open-weight models are more reliable in that they don't require specific jailbreaks nor hit classifiers, and the labs use massive partnerships or spend as a prereq for lowering classifiers/safeguards. I know of three legitimate groups running GLM 5.2 as their primary model. That last part applies for Anthropic, too: I know of two instances where two different Anthropic GTM people used large comitted spend contracts as a prereq for lowering safeguards, and I directly witnessed one. On the inside, I know the narrative and intent is genuinely about safety. But from the outside, Anthropic-the-system seems to be optimizing for revenue and control/power, isn't diffusing capabilities to defenders, and also doesn't have adequate safeguards to prevent misuse from dedicated bad actors. As a result, I now lean towards a future where capable open models are freely available (at least for cyber, bio is harder); I don't trust Anthropic or other frontier labs to handle this sufficiently well without diffused capabilties given what I've seen so far. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 3 🔄 2 ❤️ 34 👀 5888 📊 5 ⚡