I think this particular exploit crosses multiple trust boundaries, between the LLM, the MCP server, and Supabase. You will need protection at each point in that chain, not just the LLM prompt itself. The LLM could be protected with prompt injection guardrails, the MCP server should be properly scoped with the correct authn/authz credentials for the user/session of the current LLMs context, and the permissions there-in should be reflected in the user account issuing those keys from Supabase. These protections would significantly reduce the surface area of this type of attack, and there are plenty of examples of these measures being put in place in production systems.
The documentation from Supabase lists development environment examples for connecting MCP servers to AI Coding assistants. I would never allow that same MCP server to be connected to production environment without the above security measures in place, but it's likely fine for development environment with dummy data. It's not clear to me that Supabase was implying any production use cases with their MCP support, so I'm not sure I agree with the severity of this security concern.
The Supabase MCP documentation doesn't say "do not use this against a production environment" - I wish it did! I expect a lot of people genuinely do need to be told that.
I don’t think the real divide is “doom tomorrow” vs “nothing to worry about.” The crux is a pretty straightforward philosophical question "what does it even mean to generalize intelligence and agency", how much can scaling laws tell us about that?
The back-and-forth over σ²’s and growth exponents feels like theatrics that bury the actual debate.
>The crux is a pretty straightforward philosophical question "what does it even mean to generalize intelligence and agency", how much can scaling laws tell us about that?
Truly a bizarre take. I'm sure the Dinosaurs also debated the possible smell and taste of the asteroid that was about to hit them. The real debate. lol.
Ironically, this article highlights multiple times how successful Microsoft has been at boosting efficiency within the oil and gas industry that it's nearly an advertisement for Microsoft.
STIR/SHAKEN doesn't prevent spoofing. It can verify in certain cases when a call is not spoofed but it's fairly limited and almost entirely mobile-to-mobile phone calls. It requires IP based network connectivity end-to-end, which just isn't possible in the US. If a call gets routed through a rural network and switches back to TDM, it will drop all STIR/SHAKEN data. It will still take years for US infrastructure to be entirely IP-based. Robocallers sign their calls with STIR/SHAKEN just fine, the originators do this for them, so it's not going to be a strong deterrent in my opinion.
Devices support attestation level A display (green or grey check marks in your call logs designate this). If you haven't seen that check mark, then you probably haven't seen many A-level attested calls to your device. As far as device manufacturers go, they only care about A-level attestation, which makes sense as it has full traceback capability.
Just to help not spread misinformation, the 12 year old was released as he was a passenger and police believe he was forced by the driver (his brother) into the car.
The 13 year old driver was not released and will remain in jail until his trial.
Copilot is a lossy compression algorithm when applied at scale, I would expect some degradation in code quality if not applied appropriately. It's still a useful tool, but just like image and audio compression, a human needs to give the final output some last looks to ensure an acceptable out come.
"best" is subjective, but I do think the industry will eventually converge onto an architecture that is significantly more cost effective than current state of the art. Regardless of who is first to market, everyone is incentivized to continue down this path with their research on improving LLM performance.
TTS and STT models have decent support for streaming in chunks, but the accuracy drops the smaller the chunk size. Current state of LLMs are pretty limited in their ability to handle streaming inputs due to attention window constraints. There is some emerging research into attention sinks and caching initial tokens that look promising. I don't think we're quite there yet though.
QA has always been about risk management. There are multiple ways to manage risk, and some of those ways can be more cost effective to a business. As software shifted towards SaaS offerings, deployments (and rollbacks) became quicker, customer feedback loops also got lightning fast. Team's can manage the risk of a bug more efficiently by optimizing for mean-time-to-recovery. This muscle is not one that QA teams are particularly optimized for, thus their effectiveness in this new model was reduced. I've found that holding on to QA function in this environment can severely dilute the ownership of quality as a requirement from engineers.
QA is still extremely valuable in any software that has long deployment lead times. Mobile apps, On-Prem solutions, anything that cannot be deployed or rolled back within minutes can benefit from a dedicated QA team that can manage the risk appropriately.
There are so so many instances where "rolling back" is just not a feasible solution. Working for a SaaS company with mobile/web/api and huge db's, migrations, payroll uses in the product, rolling back is and should always be a LAST RESORT. In 99% of the cases, something significant enough to want to roll back usually results in a "hot patch" workflow instead because rolling back or etc has its own risk.
> QA has always been about risk management.
100%.
QA should be related to identifying risk, likelihood of failure, impact of failure to user, client and company. The earlier this is done in the varying processes, the better. ("shift left" but I've seen a ton of differences with how people describe this, but generally QA should start getting involved in the "design phase")
Another example from my own first-hand experience:
A company I worked for made a product that plugged into machines that were manufacturing parts, and based on your parameters it would tell you whether or not the part was "good" or "bad".
When interviewing the leadership of the company, as well as the majority of the engineering group, "what is the biggest risk with this product" they all said "if the product locks up!". Upon further discussion, I pulled out a much larger, insidious risk; "what if our product tells the client that the part is 'good' when it is not?"
In this example, the part could be involved in a medical device that keeps someone alive.
From what I'm reading here, the company misled "investors" by attaching the NFT to ownership in the company, which would be considered a security.
"The order finds that Impact Theory encouraged potential investors to view the purchase of a Founder’s Key as an investment into the business, stating that investors would profit from their purchases if Impact Theory was successful in its efforts."
When I purchase a baseball card, I do not have the expectation that there is any additional value attached to the baseball card beyond what the collector's market will pay.
The NFTs did purport to give ownership rights in the business profits of the NFT, as represented by the value of the NFT increasing specifically because of the labor of others acting to increase the value of the NFT.
And that is part of what makes them completely different from baseball cards. Even if the value of the cards are dependent on the labors of others, with the baseball cards, the laborers (i.e., players) are not performing that labor with the intent of increasing the value of the cards; the value of the increase in the cards, if any, is wholly coincidental.
With baseball cards, You have an expectation that the MLB will continue to promote and develop Baseball as a top sport. You purchased an illegal security.
With baseball cards, You have an expectation that the MLB will continue to promote and develop Baseball as a top sport. You purchased an illegal security.
No, you don't. For starters, baseball cards are not sold or marketed by the MLB, the teams, or the players, and buying a card does not entail any ownership in either the MLB, the companies making the card, the store where you bought the card, the players, or the teams. They're not sold by the companies that make them as business opportunities, and in fact most cards aren't worth anything.
But every NFT tells you that you should buy their NFT because their efforts to promote the NFT as a business will lead to it increasing in value. And legally, that makes all the difference.
Rare things are not automatically valuable. I still have "dragon dice" and an original deck of cards from an old lord of the rings game. Basically worthless.
This only would be the case if people continued to care about baseball. In reality, fewer people would care less and less over time. For example, there is not great value in jousting paraphenelia.
Its also worth nothing that the SEC is losing in court, losing the support of Congress and losing the support of the White House
specifically as more people, including judges, notice this lack of distinction and the SEC’s unwillingness (and inability) to describe why there is a distinction
there is either a way to issue crypto collections and collect money for them without being a security, or all other collections sold are securities with unregistered broker dealers operating illegally and fraudulently for the past 100 years
That's not true, just wishful thinking on your part.
Not all collectibles are unregistered offerings, obviously. Being a collectible also doesn't mean it can't be an unregistered offering also. This one clearly was.
You seem to be very keen on making this rather dubious point all over this thread. Certainly more motivated than I would consider “normal” for someone just wishing to weigh in on a topic they care about. Are you connected with this, or just having a particularly manic day?
One key difference between MTG cards (or baseball cards, or most any traditional collectible item) and NFTs: If the SEC shut down Wizards of the Coast and/or caused them to radically alter their businesses, old Magic cards would likely rise in value as a result, rather than cease having any material value whatsoever, as is the case with most digital assets.
Baseball cards aren’t owned by the MLB. That would be a weird expectation like buying Oakland raiders hat and expecting the hat manufacture to stop the raiders from moving to Las Vegas because it would devalue the apparel.
People buy baseball cards to collect them. I have a bunch from my childhood. They weren’t investments.
That seems materially different from an expectation that you will make money on the card, or that the value of your card is determined by MLB's profitability and future earnings.
That's still not a security, because if someone buys all the baseball cards, they don't control anything about MLB or have a right to its profits, for example.
There are companies that use the cards of specific players as a way of investing in that player - they better the player does, the more their cards are worth.
> When I purchase a baseball card, I do not have the expectation that there is any additional value attached to the baseball card beyond what the collector's market will pay.
What about music royalties rights? Those are almost always purchased with expectation of profit. Those are even explicitly marketed on the basis of how big an artist is going to be. Yet the SEC does not consider them securities
The documentation from Supabase lists development environment examples for connecting MCP servers to AI Coding assistants. I would never allow that same MCP server to be connected to production environment without the above security measures in place, but it's likely fine for development environment with dummy data. It's not clear to me that Supabase was implying any production use cases with their MCP support, so I'm not sure I agree with the severity of this security concern.