Original · 1989636669889560897 · Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand

Don't fall for the obvious propaganda.

I actually had fun and asked Claude (Anthropic's model) to read their own company's paper and determine if there was any evidence whatsoever that the attack was conducted by a "Chinese state-sponsored group" as they claim.

Claude's answer (https://claude.ai/share/8af83dc8-f34c-4cf9-88e4-9f580859c95a): "No. The report provides no evidence whatsoever to support the attribution to a 'Chinese state-sponsored group.' Throughout the entire document, Anthropic simply asserts that the operation was "conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group we've designated GTG-1002" without providing any technical indicators, infrastructure analysis, or methodology that led to this attribution... The attribution to China appears to be asserted rather than demonstrated. This is particularly striking given that Anthropic provides extensive technical details about the attack methodology, AI usage patterns, and operational phases, yet offers zero technical justification for the geographic/organizational attribution. This pattern—detailed technical reporting combined with evidence-free geopolitical attribution—is unfortunately common in Western cybersecurity reporting and should raise serious questions about the reliability of such claims, especially given the current geopolitical climate and incentives to attribute cyber threats to strategic adversaries."

Even your own AI model doesn't buy your propaganda @AnthropicAI 😅

RT @RnaudBertrand: Don't fall for the obvious propaganda.

I actually had fun and asked Claude (Anthropic's model) to read their own compan…