AllYouCanTech

Anthropic Introduces AI Tool That Can Manipulate User’s Mouse Cursor

# Anthropic’s Latest AI Innovation: Advancing Beyond Screen Vision

Anthropic, a prominent AI research organization, has recently created a stir with the introduction of an innovative tool that transcends conventional screen vision functions. This tool, named **”Computer Use,”** enables AI to take over a user’s mouse cursor and conduct basic operations on their computer. This advancement is a part of a larger enhancement to Anthropic’s AI architectures, such as **Claude** and **Haiku**, and is currently accessible through the company’s mid-tier **Claude 3.5 Sonnet model** via API access.

## A New Era of AI Interaction

The **Computer Use** tool from Anthropic is crafted to carry out multi-step commands on a user’s computer, ranging from elementary to intricate tasks. The AI is capable of “viewing” a screen, maneuvering the cursor, clicking on elements, and even typing out text. As per Anthropic, the tool is capable of executing instructions that consist of tens or even hundreds of steps, rendering it a flexible aide for a variety of functions.

### How Does It Operate?

The tool functions by assessing screenshots of the user’s display and determining how many pixels need to be moved for the cursor to click in the right spot. This capability of counting pixels is essential for the AI to interact accurately with the graphical user interface (GUI). As Anthropic points out, training the AI to count pixels posed a major challenge. Without this proficiency, the AI would find it difficult to accomplish even straightforward tasks, analogous to how many models struggle with seemingly simple inquiries like “How many A’s are in the word ‘banana’?”

### Limitations and Hurdles

Despite the significant advancement that the **Computer Use** tool provides, it has its share of limitations. The tool captures rapid successive screenshots rather than relying on a real-time video feed. This limitation can result in the omission of fleeting notifications or rapid changes on the screen. Furthermore, the tool currently cannot execute certain common functions, such as **drag-and-drop** actions.

Anthropic has also admitted that the tool can be “clumsy and prone to errors” at times. For instance, during evaluations, the AI once discontinued a coding assignment and started browsing images of Yellowstone National Park—a humorous yet revealing illustration of the tool’s existing constraints.

In spite of these issues, the tool is now in **public beta** and has undergone limited testing by employees of organizations such as **Amazon**, **Canva**, **Asana**, and **Notion**.

## The Competitive Arena: An AI Arms Race

Anthropic is not the only entity developing AI solutions that can interact with computer systems. Rival companies, including **OpenAI**, are also in the process of creating comparable tools, although they have yet to be publicly launched. This has initiated a sort of **arms race** in the AI sector, as these tools are projected to generate considerable revenue in the years ahead if they continue to advance as expected.

### Possible Uses

The potential uses of tools like **Computer Use** are extensive. In workplace settings, such tools could automate numerous mundane tasks, allowing employees to concentrate on more intricate and creative projects. For developers, the AI could enhance efficiency in repetitive responsibilities, like quality assurance (QA) testing and optimization, streamlining the development workflow.

Anthropic has consistently informed its investors that its AI tools could manage large segments of office tasks more proficiently and cost-effectively than human workers. The public trial of the **Computer Use** feature marks a step toward achieving that ambition.

## The Discussion: Tool or Menace?

As with any technological advancement, the emergence of AI tools like **Computer Use** has ignited discussions. Advocates assert that these tools will ease the workload by automating repetitive chores. Conversely, critics caution that such tools could result in widespread job loss across numerous sectors.

Both outcomes are feasible to some extent, and the implications will likely differ by industry and occupation. While some roles could see increased efficiency through AI, others might become irrelevant. The crucial inquiry is the balance between job creation and job displacement.

## Safeguards and Ethical Issues

Anthropic has taken measures to tackle some ethical concerns associated with the deployment of AI tools like **Computer Use**. The organization has instituted safeguards to avert misuse, particularly in sensitive areas such as political elections. For instance, Anthropic has crafted classifiers and other strategies to identify and reduce potential misuses. With the impending U.S. elections, the company remains vigilant against attempts to utilize the tool in ways that could undermine public confidence in electoral processes.

Additionally, Anthropic has implemented protocols to prevent the AI from engaging in activities like generating and sharing content on social media, registering web domains, or interacting with government websites. While these safeguards represent progress, they may not be completely secure. There could be inventive ways to bypass these protections, or other unintended effects may emerge as the tool gains broader usage.

## The

Announcing the Victors of Nikon’s 2024 Photomicrography Competition

# Nikon Small World Photomicrography Contest: An Amalgamation of Science and Art

Annually, the **Nikon Small World Photomicrography Contest** acts as a striking reminder that science can be just as visually captivating as it is educational. Now celebrating its 50th anniversary, the contest continues to highlight the allure and intricacy of the microscopic realm, unveiling detailed aspects that typically elude our vision. This year’s winning photograph, taken by **Bruno Cisterna** and **Eric Vitriol** from Augusta University, presents a stunning portrayal of differentiated mouse brain tumor cells, offering both visual delight and significant scientific insight.

## The Winning Image: A Window into Neurodegenerative Ailments

The 2024 top entry showcases a remarkable image of differentiated mouse brain tumor cells, emphasizing the **actin**, **microtubules**, and **nuclei**—essential parts of the cellular cytoskeleton. This image transcends mere artistry; it also aids our understanding of neurodegenerative conditions such as **Alzheimer’s** and **Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)**.

According to Cisterna, the study associated with the image examines how disruptions within the cytoskeleton of brain cells contribute to these crippling ailments. “A significant challenge with neurodegenerative diseases is our incomplete comprehension of their causes,” Cisterna stated. “To formulate effective therapies, we must first grasp the fundamentals. Our research is instrumental in uncovering this information, ultimately leading us towards a cure.”

By investigating differentiated cells, researchers can witness how mutations or toxic proteins—such as those connected to Alzheimer’s or ALS—affect neuronal structure. This inquiry could also facilitate screening for prospective drugs or gene therapies designed to safeguard neurons or restore their functionality.

## A Half-Century of Scientific Creativity

Initiated in **1974**, the Nikon Small World contest was established to showcase the beauty and intricacy of the microscopic environment through **photomicrography**—the art of capturing images through a microscope. This technique originated in the mid-19th century, with British physiologist **Richard Hill Norris** being among the early adopters for the study of blood cells in 1850. Throughout the years, photomicrography has advanced, especially with the introduction of **digital imaging technologies**, leading to enhanced precision and artistic expression.

The competition has transformed into a global forum that honors the convergence of science and art. As **Eric Flem**, a spokesperson for Nikon Instruments, observed, “After 50 years, Nikon Small World represents more than just a contest for imaging—it has evolved into a gallery celebrating the remarkable individuals who make it happen. They are the backbone of this event, seamlessly intertwining science and art to unveil the marvels of the microscopic universe.”

## The Science Behind the Image

This year’s top image is the culmination of thorough investigations into **profilin 1 (PFN1)**, a protein vital for establishing the structure of brain cells. PFN1 is crucial for sustaining **cellular transport**, essential for optimal cellular operations. Cisterna’s research uncovered that disruptions to this protein can cause the **microtubule highways**—responsible for transporting vital resources within the cell—to fail, resulting in cellular impairment.

Creating the image demanded meticulous effort. The staining process for the actin, microtubules, and nuclei took around three months to perfect. After extensive observation, Cisterna and Vitriol finally succeeded in capturing the ideal image, revealing the intricate beauty of cellular components.

## A Tribute to the Microscopic Realm

The Nikon Small World contest is more than a pursuit of scientific findings; it also stands as a tribute to the often-ignored splendor of the microscopic universe. The contest inspires us to take a moment and value the “small things” integral to the essence of life. From the delicate formations of brain cells to the detailed designs of insect eggs, the contest uncovers the hidden marvels surrounding us.

This year’s contest highlighted an array of striking submissions, from the **electric arc between a pin and a wire** to an up-close observation of **octopus eggs** and the **eyes of a green crab spider**. These images not only enchant viewers but also provide valuable perspectives on nature.

## The Top Winners of 2024

Here are some of the standout entries from this year’s contest:

1. **First Place**: Differentiated mouse brain tumor cells (actin, microtubules, and nuclei) by **Bruno Cisterna** and **Eric Vitriol**.
2. **Second Place**: Electrical arc between a pin and a wire by **Marcel Clemens**.
3. **Third Place**: Leaf of a cannabis plant, showcasing trichomes and cannabinoid vesicles by **Chris Romaine**.
4. **Fourth Place**:

“FortiGate Admins Indicate Ongoing Exploitation of 0-Day Flaw; Supplier Stays Mute”

# Fortinet Vulnerability: A Serious Zero-Day Exploit Under Ongoing Attack

Recent advancements in cybersecurity have revealed that a significant flaw in Fortinet’s network security software is currently being actively exploited, enabling threat actors to execute remote code on servers. This vulnerability, which has been a topic of discussion within the cybersecurity community for at least nine days, is believed to be exploited by attackers to target sensitive institutions. In spite of the critical nature of this issue, Fortinet has largely refrained from comment, neglecting to issue a public advisory or share detailed information regarding the vulnerability.

## What Is Known Thus Far

Fortinet, a prominent supplier of network security solutions, is under scrutiny for its management of a zero-day vulnerability that permits **Remote Code Execution (RCE)**. It is thought that this vulnerability impacts **FortiManager**, a software tool utilized by organizations for managing network traffic and devices. Reports indicate that attackers have exploited this vulnerability to gain unauthorized entry into FortiManager systems, potentially enabling them to run malicious code on targeted servers.

### Versions of FortiManager Affected

Insights gleaned from a Reddit discussion have identified particular versions of FortiManager that are susceptible to this exploit. The vulnerable versions are:

– **FortiManager 7.6.0 and prior**
– **FortiManager 7.4.4 and prior**
– **FortiManager 7.2.7 and prior**
– **FortiManager 7.0.12 and prior**
– **FortiManager 6.4.14 and prior**

To reduce the risk, users are encouraged to upgrade to the following versions:

– **FortiManager 7.6.1 or higher**
– **FortiManager 7.4.5 or higher**
– **FortiManager 7.2.8 or higher**
– **FortiManager 7.0.13 or higher**
– **FortiManager 6.4.15 or higher**

There are also claims that **FortiManager Cloud**, the cloud-based variant of the software, could be vulnerable too.

### Fortinet’s Lack of Clarity

Despite the extensive discourse surrounding the vulnerability, Fortinet has not issued a public advisory or provided a **CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures)** designation, which is the standard identifier for security vulnerabilities. This absence of clarity has left numerous customers, security researchers, and journalists uninformed, relying on social media and independent analyses to grasp the issue’s scope and seriousness.

Some administrators have noted receiving notifications from Fortinet recommending software updates, while others have not had such communication. This inconsistent response has heightened the frustration among Fortinet clients, many of whom are now questioning the safety of their systems.

### Characteristics of the Exploit

The flaw appears to originate from a default configuration in FortiManager that permits devices with unfamiliar or unauthorized serial numbers to self-register with an organization’s FortiManager dashboard. This vulnerability could enable attackers to register rogue devices and infiltrate the network.

Independent security researcher **Kevin Beaumont** has actively discussed the situation, sharing insights on platforms like **Mastodon**. According to Beaumont, attackers are registering unauthentic FortiGate devices with hostnames like “localhost” in FortiManager systems, which then facilitates their exploitation of the vulnerability to achieve remote code execution.

A now-removed Reddit comment hinted that attackers might seize a FortiGate certificate from any FortiGate device, register it to a FortiManager instance, and gain illicit access. This would grant them control over the network, potentially allowing them to siphon sensitive information or disrupt normal operations.

### Involvement of Nation-States

There are signs that **nation-state actors**, particularly those from China, have been leveraging this vulnerability for several months. Beaumont has indicated that Chinese state-sponsored hackers have exploited this flaw to breach internal networks since the beginning of this year. This raises alarms about the potential for extensive espionage and cyberattacks aimed at critical infrastructure and sensitive organizations.

### Fortinet’s Track Record with Vulnerability Disclosure

This is not the first instance of Fortinet facing criticism regarding its management of security vulnerabilities. The organization has a pattern of quietly patching critical vulnerabilities without providing public advisories. In several cases, Fortinet has only revealed vulnerabilities after they have been extensively exploited in the real world.

For instance, earlier this year, Fortinet was sluggish to disclose a critical flaw in its **FortiGate VPN** software that was under active exploitation by threat actors. In another case, Fortinet failed to deliver timely updates regarding a vulnerability that allowed attackers to compromise over 20,000 Fortinet VPNs, as reported by Dutch intelligence services.

### Fortinet’s Pledge to Transparency

Fortinet’s Chief Information Security Officer, **Carl Windsor**, recently published a blog entry reaffirming the company’s commitment to “ethical and responsible product development and vulnerability disclosure.” In this post, Windsor stressed Fortinet’s commitment to “radical transparency” and adherence to

Lawsuit Allegations Assert City Cameras Facilitate Ongoing Surveillance of Drivers

### Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Questions Norfolk’s Deployment of Automated License Plate Readers

A legal action initiated against Norfolk, Virginia, is sparking serious debates regarding the deployment of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and their effects on privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs, represented by the **Institute for Justice**, contend that the city’s broad application of these cameras represents warrantless surveillance, infringing on the constitutional rights of residents. This lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, aims to stop the utilization of these cameras and calls for the removal of all data gathered through the system.

#### The Surveillance Setup in Norfolk

Norfolk, home to about 238,000 inhabitants, has established a network of 172 ALPR cameras supplied by **Flock Safety**, a firm focused on surveillance technology. These cameras photograph every vehicle that travels through their field of view, capturing license plate details and other identifiers, such as car color and model, which are then recorded in a database. The system is built to monitor vehicles throughout the city and beyond, as Flock Safety operates in more than 5,000 communities across the nation.

As per the lawsuit, this array of cameras renders it almost impossible for locals to navigate the city without being monitored. The plaintiffs assert that this degree of surveillance breaches constitutional norms, permitting the warrantless gathering and retention of personal information, which can be accessed by law enforcement without sufficient cause or judicial oversight.

#### Legal Context and the Fourth Amendment

The lawsuit references current legal precedents, including a 2020 verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the matter of *Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department*. In that instance, the court determined that continuous, warrantless aerial surveillance via drones in Baltimore violated the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The plaintiffs in the Norfolk lawsuit argue that the city’s operation of ground-based ALPR cameras is effectively comparable to the aerial surveillance deemed unconstitutional in Baltimore.

The lawsuit demands a ruling declaring Norfolk’s employment of ALPR cameras as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and requests a permanent injunction barring the city from running these cameras. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek a court order for the obliteration of all images and data amassed by the system.

#### Flock Safety’s Position

Although not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Flock Safety has stood by the legality of its technology. In a statement, the company referenced Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which it claims largely validates the use of ALPR cameras. Flock asserts that courts have regularly ruled that photographing vehicles in public areas does not equate to a warrantless search due to the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning a vehicle’s exterior or license plate.

Flock also highlighted verdicts in at least 14 states, including decisions made by the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which have affirmed the constitutionality of ALPR systems. The company contends that license plates are issued by the government explicitly to identify vehicles in public, and capturing photographs of them does not breach privacy rights.

#### The Plaintiffs’ Stresses

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, **Lee Schmidt** and **Crystal Arrington**, are both regular drivers in Norfolk and the nearby Portsmouth, which also employs Flock cameras. Schmidt, a retired Navy veteran, alongside Arrington, a certified nursing assistant, argue that the relentless surveillance is profoundly intrusive and diminishes their privacy. Arrington expresses particular concern regarding the effect on her elderly clients, whose movements could also be monitored while she transports them to appointments in Norfolk.

The lawsuit underscores the risk of misuse of the ALPR system, pointing to instances in other states where law enforcement officials have exploited the technology. In Kansas, a police chief tracked his ex-girlfriend’s vehicle over 200 times in just four months using Flock cameras. In California, multiple police departments were found to have breached state laws by distributing ALPR data to agencies nationwide.

#### The Technology Underpinning Flock’s ALPR System

Flock’s ALPR technology is driven by sophisticated machine learning algorithms, which the company identifies as “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology. This system not only records license plate numbers but also captures additional identifying characteristics of vehicles, such as bumper stickers or roof racks. These attributes are stored in a searchable database, enabling law enforcement to monitor a vehicle’s travels over time and across different jurisdictions.

The plaintiffs maintain that this extent of surveillance generates a comprehensive record of every driver’s movements, accessible to law enforcement with minimal effort. The lawsuit alleges that Norfolk’s police chief has boasted about the system’s capabilities, asserting that “it would be difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere.”

#### Privacy vs. Public Safety

The city of Norfolk has defended its application of ALPR cameras, asserting that the system aims to bolster public safety while safeguarding citizen privacy. In