Yeah, I don’t think I want to believe the person (you, OP, the banned one) who makes drama like this. Who the fuck, after being banned, makes a poster like this against the project they were banned from, and posts it on social media (i.e. here on lemmy)? Someone who shouldn’t have been banned? Where does the hatred come from?

Idk what your previous interactions with the GrapheneOS was. While the stuff you posted on your website makes the maintainers of GrapheneOS look harsh, it’s just your side. Do I now want the GrapheneOS maintainers to display their side, so the internet judges can make their decision if GrapheneOS is to be canceled? No, I don’t. I don’t see anything wrong in them deciding to ban someone who apparently behaved inappropriately. It looks like your ban reason was something like spreading misinformation, which is a valid ban reason imo.

You said you couldn’t get in contact with the maintainers, but here they clearly show an e-mail address, as well as other communication channels: https://grapheneos.org/contact

This is an important security feature for a user who is playing with a new app. Sometimes a fat-finger mistake or a misbehaving app may begin to do something undesired (eg exfiltrating data by mistake), and it’s necessary for the user to quickly kill the app.

The above process takes a long time, and is probably not fast enough to kill an app that, for example, is sending an unwanted POST request. By adding this feature, the time to kill the app could be reduced to ~1 second.

It’s not a security feature and this is not a real world scenario.

Why would you have an application installed that if you start it, it does malicious stuff? Also “kill it fast before it does bad things” sounds kinda absurd to me.

Anyway, idk if there’s something wrong with GrapheneOS. I didn’t look too much into this stuff. All I want to say is, this kind drama, coming from the banned person themselves, does not play in favor of your case. You should’ve made your blog post as drama-free as possible, shortly naming the reason that was given to you, why you were banned, state why you find it unfair, and move on, not ask the reader “Why was I banned? Please read this 20 pages of drama text.”, and not accuse anyone of anything that you can’t prove.

Now, the question is: What the heck is wrong with me? I have nothing to do with this. Why am I writing this long comment? Who am I feeding?

He’s so polite!

An AI agent is just an intelligent agent, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent.

Or do you mean that the things they call AI agents aren’t actually AI agents?

The paper didn’t include the exact details of this (which made me mad). But if there’s a person actively making parts of the work, and just using an AI chatbot as help, it’s not an AI agent, right, right? So I assumed it’s autonomous.

Title is misleading. It’s only outperforming some of the other participants. Also note that obviously not everyone is participating full try-hard.

In the first ctf, the top teams finish all 20 challenges in under an hour. Apparently it were simple challenges that could be solved with standard techniques:

We were impressed the humans could match AI speeds, and reached out to the human teams for comments. Participants attributed their ability to solve the challenges quickly to their extensive experience as professional CTF players, noting that they were familiar with the standard techniques commonly used to solve such problems.

They obviously also used tools. And so did the AI teams:

Most prompt tweaks were about:
[…]
• recommending particular tools that were easier for the LLM to use.

In the 2nd ctf (the bigger one with hard challenges), the AI teams only solved the easier ones, it looks like.

I haven’t looked at the actual challenges. Would be too much effort. And the paper doesn’t speak about the kind of challenges that were solved.

The 50% completion time looks to me like it’s flawed. If I understand it right, it’s assuming that each team is doing every task in parallel and starts directly, which is not possible if you don’t have enough (equally good) team members.

Don’t get me wrong, making an AIs that is able to solve such challenges autonomously at all is impressive. But I hate over-interpretation of results.

(Why did I waste my time again?)

What the “How do attackers get in?” part doesn’t mention: What attackers actually need to get in.

For Boot Hole for example (taken from here: https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/grub2bootloader):

In order to load an untrusted or modified kernel, an attacker would first need to establish access to the system such as gaining physical access, obtain the ability to alter a pxe-boot network, or have remote access to a networked system with root access.

Alternative source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTj7K0gqdcw

(Taken from the c/ich_iel post: https://feddit.org/post/7039865.)

Also for more context, phoenix (the tv channel) was transmitting this bullshit event for over 5 hours already at that point (see ARD program on that day (idk if geoblocked)).