Cesar Cerrudo

Professional Hacker & Cyber Security Futurist. Security/ Hacking

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

The dangers of humans hacking your home robots

[La Jaula del N00b @LaJauladelN00b]

🔥Episodio nuevo en tu podcast favorito de hackers La Jaula del N00b con @cesarcer hablando de hacking y cómo logró hackear los semáforos de Nueva York 🗽 😎🇲🇽🇪🇸🎙️ @debugsec1337 @AxelMetalCyber @rockodev04 @HackersOIHEC @poolfme #podcast #infosec #hacker

https://t.co/yApoKnn8Je

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

It looks like cartelization, next steps try to ban open source models in different ways...

[Sam Altman @sama]

I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks.

Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same. We'll have more to share soon.

[Pool Mendoza @poolfme]

De la ilusión de las Smart Cities al estrés del costo por token en la IA.
Nuevo episodio con @cesarcer, fundador de Argeniss y el hacker que expuso la fragilidad de los semáforos de NY. Genial su Misión 1 Millón! @LaJauladelN00b @hectoroihec @debugsec1337 @AxelMetalCyber

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

@Epampliega @chemaalonso Gracias!!

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

@javifelices Gracias!

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

Gracias Chema!! 🙌

[Chema Alonso @chemaalonso]

El lado del mal - Guía de Seguridad de un Hacker para personas que no quieren ser Víctimas https://t.co/Z5fexJ87f9 #libro #grautito #hacker #ciberseguridad #estafas #proteccion

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

I wonder why OpenAI is not being sued and/or prosecuted by authorities? Maybe OpenAI has carte blanche for hacking anyone

https://t.co/ONtzowOnFd

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

@4Dgifts There are many great hackers working at IA companies doing great work but I don't think they have much decision power to turn around bad practices, I hope hacker spirit will triumph and if they see something bad they will kick the company in the teeth, but maybe I'm too naive

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

Unnoticed for a week!! The most worrying thing is that OpenAI ends up publicly acknowledging that they do not know how to contain a dangerous model but at the same time minimizing the incident and using it as marketing. The passivity with which the news was taken in general is surprising, OpenAI should have been destroyed with justified criticism, even gobernments should have taken some actions against OpenAI reckless behaviour. What happened is extremely serious as it could have result in dangerous hacks (critical infrastructure, hospitals, financial institutions, etc.) with terrible consequences. It is as if a laboratory was testing a deadly virus with the capacity to kill millions, and the laboratory says "the virus escaped but luckily it only made a couple people sick and we then contained it".
https://t.co/wKkjRqGF3S

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

This shameful incident being used as marketing.
Basically OpenAI is telling the world that they don’t know how to test their AI models in a secure way. What next? Sorry we blew out a nuclear reactor while testing but we will take more precautions next time.

[Sam Altman @sama]

we had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models. we are sharing what we have learned so far. thanks to @huggingface for the partnership on this.

https://t.co/2o2VfR6PIa

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

Suddenly people realize MSFT sucks at dealing with security, vulns and researchers. It has been almost always like this except for a few years, I guess now people are paying more attention.

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

Agree

[ᴅᴀɴɪᴇʟ ᴍɪᴇssʟᴇʀ 🛡️ @DanielMiessler]

This is what people are not realizing about how many knowledge work jobs are about to go away.

Penetration testing and bug bounty are two of the highest complexity, multi step, high IQ and high creativity jobs in all of knowledge work.

This is a job that many people believed would not and could not be automated. And now it went from not possible to everyone is doing it in the period of about four months.

I’m gonna say this very clearly:

If this job can be automated, then any job in knowledge work can be automated.

That is hundreds of millions of knowledge work jobs totaling somewhere around $70 trillion in an annual compensation.

So what happens to the economy when that $70 trillion is not going to those knowledge workers anymore to pay their mortgages, or to spend in the economy in other businesses?

I define AGI as the presence of a product that can replace an knowledge worker, and I believed that 2027 was the most likely year for this to happen. It looks now like it will either be 2027 or maybe even later this year in 2026.

The UBI conversations are about to kick in full blast probably starting in late 2027 and 2028. And by 2029 or 2030 there will need to be actual checks going out if we are to avoid something really nasty. Assuming that crash doesn’t happen much sooner.

We are living in the before scene of a catastrophe movie.

And this is coming from an optimist who thinks that the other side will eventually get much better than what we had before the crash.

But we all need to wake up to the fact that this is coming.

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

AI is a mediocrity killer.
It makes mediocrity extremely visible and assure its extinction.

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

AI doesn't agree.
Here's a critical analysis of the key flaws in Kobeissi's arguments:

1. Survivorship Bias as a Framework
The repeated claim that "humanity has ALWAYS prevailed" and "the free market ALWAYS works itself out" cherry-picks outcomes. It ignores the civilizations, industries, and entire social classes that didn't survive transitions. The Roman Empire, Soviet collapse, and the hollowing out of the American Rust Belt are all examples where "working itself out" meant decades of suffering for millions before any recovery.

2. The PC Price Analogy Is Misleading
Comparing AI to the 99.9% drop in PC prices is a false equivalence. PCs were a new product category that created demand from scratch. AI is different — it directly substitutes existing human labor across multiple sectors simultaneously. When PCs got cheaper, nobody lost their job "to a PC." When AI gets cheaper, it explicitly replaces the worker. The demand dynamics are fundamentally different.

3. "Demand Always Expands" Is Not a Law of Physics
The article assumes that lower costs automatically create new demand and new industries. But this is not guaranteed, especially at the speed AI is moving. Previous revolutions (electricity, internet) unfolded over decades, giving labor markets time to adapt. AI is compressing that timeline to months or quarters. The speed of disruption matters as much as the direction.

4. The "Invisible Tax Cut" Ignores Distribution
Calling cheaper services an "invisible tax cut" glosses over a critical question: who benefits and when? If millions of white-collar workers lose income before prices meaningfully decline, the transition period can be devastating. A tax cut is useless if you have no income to spend. The timing gap between job displacement and price deflation is completely unaddressed.

5. "Abundance GDP" Is a Theoretical Construct
The concept of prices falling faster than incomes sounds elegant, but assumes AI-driven deflation will be orderly and uniform. In reality, essential costs like housing, healthcare delivery (not administration), and food are driven by physical scarcity and regulatory bottlenecks that AI cannot easily solve. Rent doesn't drop because legal documents are cheaper to produce.

6. Entrepreneurship as a Safety Net Is Overstated
The argument that displaced workers will simply become entrepreneurs is a Silicon Valley fantasy. Most people lack the risk tolerance, capital, network, and temperament for entrepreneurship. Saying "one person can now automate everything" ignores that running a business requires far more than automating tasks — it requires finding customers, managing uncertainty, and bearing financial risk. Historically, mass displacement does not produce mass entrepreneurship.

7. The Geopolitical Argument Is Naive
Claiming AI abundance will "end wars" ignores that conflict is driven by power, ideology, and territorial ambition — not just scarcity. World War I broke out among the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nations on Earth. Furthermore, AI itself is becoming a geopolitical weapon (surveillance, autonomous military systems, information warfare). Abundance in one nation can increase the power asymmetry that triggers conflict with others.

8. The Speed Problem Is Completely Ignored
The article's biggest blind spot is tempo. Every historical analogy cited (PCs, internet, electricity) played out over 20-50 years. AI is disrupting entire sectors in weeks, as the article itself demonstrates with the CrowdStrike example. The economy may eventually adapt, but "eventually" can mean a lost generation of workers. The article offers no framework for how fast adaptation needs to happen.

9. Conflict of Interest Is Unaddressed
The article concludes with a pitch for Kobeissi's premium investment service, claiming 5x S&P 500 returns. This creates a clear incentive to frame disruption as opportunity. The optimistic framing — "best trading conditions ever" — serves their commercial interest. A truly balanced analysis wouldn't need to sell you a subscription at the end.

10. False Binary: Doom vs. Abundance
The entire piece is structured as "the bears are wrong, here's the bull case." But the most likely outcome is neither collapse nor abundance — it's a messy, uneven transition where some sectors boom, others are devastated, and the benefits are unevenly distributed along class, geography, and education lines. By framing it as binary, the article avoids the harder, more realistic discussion about policy, safety nets, and who actually bears the cost of transition.

In short, Kobeissi's optimism rests on historical analogies that may not apply at AI's speed, assumes smooth transitions that have never occurred in practice, and systematically underweights the distributional and timing problems that make "the economy adapts" far less comforting than it sounds.

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

AI won’t teach you to think

[Ryan Holiday @RyanHoliday]

https://t.co/ptyZ7zFfki

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

@thegrugq @milesdeutscher good point, academia going back to roots and more generalist could make more sense now

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

For Advanced Protection
• Disconnect your smart TV from the internet entirely and use a separate streaming device (Apple TV most recommeded or privacy-focused alternative) for smart features.
• Create a separate WiFi network for IoT devices to prevent your TV from scanning your primary network.
• Use a VPN or DNS-level ad blocker (such as Pi-hole) on your network to block telemetry traffic.

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

Your Smart TVs are literally watching you.
Texas AG just sued Samsung, LG, Sony, Hisense & TCL for illegal spying. Temporary restraining orders already issued against Hisense + Samsung.
I ranked the Top brands by real privacy risk + protection steps. #privacy
Thread ...

[Cesar Cerrudo @cesarcer]

To protect take Immediate Actions:
• Disable ACR on your current TV .
• Reset or delete your advertising ID to break existing tracking profiles.
• Disable voice assistant features if you don’t actively use them.
• Check privacy settings after every firmware update, as they may revert to defaults.