✦   ✦   ✦

breaking news

News, read through The Primal Race
← 全部评论 · all commentary

AI 军备竞赛:一场由恐惧驱动的共谋骗局The AI Arms Race: A Complicity Scam Driven by Fear

科技 结构层 · 元暴力 The New York Times ↗ 2026-05-25 § 链接
网络安全需求的激增,本质上是 AI 制造漏洞后的自我收割。
The surge in cybersecurity demand is simply AI harvesting the vulnerabilities it created.

NYT 这篇报道在试图定义一种“机遇”,但实际上它揭示的是一个典型的 AI 军备竞赛 scam。逻辑非常简单:AI 快速生成大量垃圾代码 $\rightarrow$ 引入更多漏洞 $\rightarrow$ 创造对安全专家的刚需 $\rightarrow$ 抬高安全预算。这根本不是什么技术进步,而是一场关于“制造问题再解决问题”的闭环生意。

这种叙事是典型的 masculine 逻辑:通过制造混乱(Chaos)来确立秩序(Order)的权威。AI 实验室一边推出像 Mythos 这样能快速挖掘漏洞的模型,一边警告人们需要更多安全专家。这就像是纵火犯在向城市推销昂贵的灭火器,而 Fortune 100 的 CEO 们则在恐惧和不确定性中扮演共谋者,心甘情愿地为这种“安全感”支付溢价。

从 Violence Triangle 来看,这里存在严重的结构暴力。AI 降低了代码生成的门槛,但它同时也通过增加系统复杂度和脆弱性,将技术主权进一步垄断在极少数能“修补漏洞”的精英手中。所谓的“人才短缺”不过是另一种定价权博弈。当一个行业通过制造漏洞来维持就业增长时,它在本质上是对技术文明的一种掠夺。

不要被“需求增长”的数字欺骗。如果一个工具的普及是以增加整个数字生态的脆弱性为代价,那么这种增长不是进步,而是一种元暴力——它定义了我们必须生活在永恒的恐惧之中,才能换取所谓的“安全”。

The NYT is attempting to frame this as an 'opportunity,' but it's actually a classic AI arms race scam. The logic is linear: AI generates a glut of low-quality code $\rightarrow$ introduces more bugs $\rightarrow$ creates a desperate need for security experts $\rightarrow$ inflates security budgets. This isn't technical progress; it's a closed-loop business of manufacturing problems to sell the solutions.

This narrative is textbook masculine logic: establishing the authority of 'Order' by first generating 'Chaos.' AI labs release models like Mythos that can exploit vulnerabilities, then pivot to warn the world that we need more experts. It's like an arsonist selling expensive fire extinguishers, while Fortune 100 executives act as complicit players, paying a premium for a manufactured sense of security.

Through the lens of the Violence Triangle, this is structural violence. AI lowers the barrier to coding, but by increasing systemic fragility, it further monopolizes technical sovereignty within a tiny elite of 'fixers.' The 'talent shortage' is just another game of pricing power. When an industry maintains growth by creating vulnerabilities, it is essentially plundering the technical civilization.

Don't be fooled by the growth metrics. If the adoption of a tool comes at the cost of increasing the fragility of the entire digital ecosystem, that's not progress. It is meta-violence—defining a reality where we must live in perpetual fear just to afford the illusion of safety.