Get to it. Give the teams doing this presidential pardons and full immunity. Apply patches and mitigations on all the things. Impress us all. One big downtime, get 'er done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_3:_Rise_of_the_Mach...
If it's smart enough to do the first, I don't trust it to do the second.
If there is a third option where companies drop everything, all hands on deck to patch all the things I would take that but it's just never been a priority. That's why I was always a big fan of ransomware separating customer data away from companies that should not have had it in the first place.
There might be a bigger reason why five eyes is doing this, but even with all the knowledge I have of the (publically known) capabilities of five eyes I really don't see why this statement exists. Either we're on the verge of real, efficient computer intelligence or this is just fearmongering that has been elevated from mouth to mouth making it sound way more severe than it actually is.
State sponsored actors have already had the capability of mythos, the only thing mythos allows is reducing the amount of precursor knowledge needed in order to perform explotation.
I've been slowly working on "mythos at home" article with solid proof of replicating many of the (claimed) capabilties that mythos has with opensource models and GLM-5.2 has been pretty instrumental in advancing it forward.
I strongly believe there is either something extremely serious being hidden from the public (nothing new, five eyes operates in secrecy) or this is overblown fearmongering being brought up to the upper decision center that are afraid that non state sponsored entities now have the capability to achieve what was previously only possible when you're backed by a state.
On the bright side, glm-5.2 is pretty good at autonomously optimizing software so at least we're not going to be locked out of the frontier for long.
--
Side note: The amount of vulerabilities found in blockchains around gpt and opus 4.7 release does show that it is a real problem and I am not denying that. There have been several government agencies that have suffered from data leaks last few months as well as general more public CVE's such as copyfail. But I still believe if the same kind of money was invested into people we'd have similar if not better results.
NSA and others employ thousands of people who actually are super good at computers. If this message was coming from those people--actual credible experts--I'd be a lot more interested. Instead, what it seems like is happening here is the same organizational brain rot that's happening everywhere. Out of touch leadership, a skewed information environment, and bad incentives align to produce utterly insane conclusions divorced from reality. In short, psychotic delusions.
This is, probably, just marketing noise. Nothing to worry about, except that the people spouting it have been psychologically compromised. So if their job function is essential, that's a problem.
How bad would a cyberattack have to be to topple a government? I guess I could see a parliamentary government losing public confidence if it failed to prevent a severe enough attack. I'm not sure I see it for something like the US, where elections are fixed. It might swing the next election, but that's not the same as "toppling a government", is it?
misinformation (already exists)
personalized attacks to influence voting behavior (already exists)
attacks of the financial system (the big one here)
Effective enough news investigations have toppled governments already.