Side N
Sophistication Stopped Telling You Who
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section Seven sources were used. One of them supplies most of the material and is the party being written about; the rows say where that is so.
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| 1 · What happened | Anthropic, for the counts and every case figure; Microsoft, for the independent account of the captive-portal campaign; CNBC, for the absence of any response from the named laboratories; TechCrunch and Tech Times, for the aggregate and the emphasis |
| 2 · Timeline | Anthropic; Microsoft; both Google Threat Intelligence Group trackers; CNBC |
| 3 · The argument | Anthropic, for the credential triad and the campaign against roughly thirty AI companies; the Google Threat Intelligence Group’s September tracker, for the independent description of the same behaviours and for the more conservative conclusion set against it |
| 4 · What others add | Microsoft, including its acknowledgement of working with two AI vendors on the investigation; both Google Threat Intelligence Group trackers; Anthropic, for the two relayed sessions and for its guidance on keys; CNBC |
| 5 · Conclusion | Anthropic; the Google Threat Intelligence Group’s September tracker; Microsoft; CNBC; TechCrunch; Tech Times |
What the evidence base looks like Unusually concentrated: one source carries most of the page, and the two that check it are the reason the page can be written at all.
- 7sources behind this article, all read in full at their own pages
- 3of them written by a vendor about its own telemetry — two of those with no interest in the subject of this page
- 1disagreement between sources, carried on the page rather than resolved
- 0indicators of compromise reproduced from the report — a defender’s feed is not a reference article
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| A vendor’s account of its own platform | 3 | full text; the counts on this page were taken from that text by script, not by eye |
| A vendor’s earlier tracker on the same subject | 1 | full text |
| Reporting | 3 | full text; one of them establishes the single thing the primary document cannot — whether the accused answered |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing