chrisjj

47 ms·

721.
X to block UK access to accounts linked to terrorist groups in Ofcom agreement(theguardian.com)
2 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|0 comments
722.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Good point. Beating lame ducks seems to be "AI"'s top use case.
723.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
I searched this report for "test". Result: none found. > what if a small team of public servants, equipped with modern AI development tools, built the replacement systems themselves? Next: bridges and brain surgery.
724.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> Enter Claude Code, Kiro, Cursor, whatever. Now I can write anything I ?
725.
One in seven prefer consulting AI chatbots to seeing a doctor, UK study shows(theguardian.com)
2 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|1 comments
726.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Natural selection incoming.
727.
Never trust a parrot to check your shopping list
3 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|0 comments
728.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I think the world we are entering is one of parrots generating far more bugs than they find.
729.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> Why You Shouldn’t Treat AI Agents Like Employees Because they'll soon be better at suing you for mistreatment.
730.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Not a dupe at all.
731.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> software defects aren’t infinite. Comedy award incoming.
732.
AI-powered hacking has exploded into industrial-scale threat, Google says(theguardian.com)
26 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|10 comments
733.
Palantir's access to identifiable NHS England patient data 'dangerous', MPs say(theguardian.com)
16 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|1 comments
734.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> There's an obvious explanation, of course. Somewhere, a product manager decided that even though the agent can answer 24/7, the humans it would have to escalate to can't. There's a more obvious explanation. The &quo
735.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> In the 99% of cases where this status page is used, it is in fact the truth. Figures. Else people would not fall for the lie.
736.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> I just take my business elsewhere... Mars? /i
737.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
"Don't be evil. That's our job."
738.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
They'll keep it, but require TPM in each ear.
739.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Like letting a parrot use your smartphone. What could possibly go wrong?
740.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> You are saying Google doesn't have the second. No. Nearer the first. "to order, limit, or rule something, or someone's actions or behaviour". Google's parrot is out of its control.
741.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
And lets not side with Canvas PR.
742.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> That's just the quickest page/status update to throw up Funny how a lie is always quicker than the truth...
743.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> It should be illegal for any company to pay ransomware attacks. Period. That makes as much sense as illegal to give your wallet to a mugger. I.e. no sense.
744.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> Uh, who determines that the infrastructure wasn't properly secured? ShinyHackers, obviously.
745.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> When will countries start treating cyberattacks as an act of war? When appropriate. I.e. never.
746.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> neither should the courts Sure they should, and they should raise the penalties accordingly to punish a company that puts out uncontrolled tech. > is fully in control of the content that makes it to the user. They do not control the
747.
A digital photo frame written in Lisp(forum.ulisp.com)
18 points by chrisjj 6mo ago|0 comments
748.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
Sure they should have the responsibility . Even more so given they don't have control.
749.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
750.
by chrisjj 6mo ago
That kinda presumes demand is the problem. Unless you're suggesting driving demand to zero...

More ›