I understand the desire to stop anthropomorphizing AI. But, that can backfire when AI use cause genuine harms like this. Someone was responsible for this hacking. We need to make sure the blame (including any criminal liability) falls squarely on the humans who enabled it to happen, whether or not they did the actual hacking or asked a bot to do it.
Many times that AI summary is just something that is in the first two or three links anyway
The US already has considerable access to Greenland for military purposes. It’s entirely possible they are simply agreeing to things that have already been agreed to, just to give the toddler his special piece of paper with his name on it.
Why the downvotes? It is a legit tech article, even if it’s about tech nobody asked for.
My wife and I manage a lot of coordination just by sharing our Google calendars. And, in fact, she was a whiz at using the Google Assistant to do all sorts of cool stuff. But, this was Google Assistant before it got infected with all the newest AI. Google’s (Generative) AI actually made it all dumber.
The hackers said they were able to access the Android system on the camera, and found two partitions—sections of its hard-drive, essentially. A few of these were unencrypted, the hackers said, including one called “vendor” and another called “media.” The latter contained an encryption key that unlocked another part, which contained much of the media—think, the videos and stills—the camera took.
Lol
I think those firms justify their bill rates by results, not by a literary analysis of their filings.
You noticed that his text followed a common AI pattern. I replied, basically, with “So what? He’s responsible for it regardless”.
The legal stuff is relevant because he is a lawyer and is discussing it in the courtroom.
You’re lucky this community doesn’t explicitly list accusing humans of being AI as a reportable offense. I’ve been reported in other places for saying “beep boop”…
That’s not what I said at all. Quite the opposite. Whether a thing is generated by AI or not is irrelevant, especially in court. What matters is that everything presented in court is backed by the legal team that is presenting it. If a lawyer ever uses “The AI did that” as an excuse for an error, they should be immediately disbarred.
If he had an AI write some text and he presents it, that’s not a problem. The problem occurs when he views that as permission to not do his job correctly, because the bot did it for him.
Treat AI like an overly enthusiastic, book-smart intern. There is no ethical dilemma having that intern do research for the lead lawyer, but if the intern makes a fundamental mistake and the lead lawyer introduces it in court, the lawyer would face a reprimand, even though he didn’t make the mistake, for not checking the Intern’s work.
Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn’t matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.
In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.
The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an “oops” is OK. But in court, a blatant “oops” (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.
But it’s not socialism when they do it!
not necessarily, MAC is a layer 2 protocol, and your router (NAT or no NAT) operates on layer 3. Routers are supposed to overwrite the MAC address with their own when they forward a packet.
It’s always possible for the unit to put its own identfying info in the payload. But you didn’t do anything silly like register the TV, did you?
Then you can watch all the depraved porn you want to, and the Government will think it’s coming from the house with the insecure wifi
Not quite sure on that one. They seem to be mainly interested in their guy more than anything else. But assuming that’s true, you could have led with that. Pointing out that a Jew is wearing a kippah in a post like this has the same energy as mocking an Arab for wearing a turban.
Not clicking the link, but what’s the big deal? He was attending Harvard at the time, and is also Jewish. I would expect him to wear a kippah to a religious event on campus.
You need 64 GB or RAM to use it? Seems like it’s just a marketing gimmick to find dumb developers who can afford 64GB of RAM in the first place. Kind of like that “I am Rich” app…
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Is AI causing the same effect on hiring in the rest of the world as it is in the US? I wonder if it causes less worry in other countries because those countries have better worker protections, and are not experiencing the same level of AI eating their jobs that we have here.