munchausen42

Most active topic is actually governance and society impacts around AI - in other words AI opinion slop. This actually became super annoying on HN. I‘d love to learn about new technology related to AI (no matter if LLM or other)

„ 100% of tech experts I talk to“ - that seems like a legitimate population sample to support such broad statements.

Funny to see how being anti-GenAI and anti-LLM is now the new en vogue on HN. Can't wait till that dies off as well.

hm I don't think that passwords are an example of good IT security. There are much better options like physical tokens, biometric features, passkeys etc. that are less obtrusive and don't require the users to follow certain learned rules and behaviors.

If the security concept is based on educating and teaching people how to behave it's prone to fail anyway, as there will always be that one uninformed and ignorant person like me that doesn't get the message. As soon as there is one big gaping hole in the wall, the whole fortress becomes useless (Case in point: haveibeenpwned.com) Also, good luck teaching everyone in the company how to identify a personalized phishing message crafted by ChatGPT.

For the other two arguments: I don't see how "But we solved it in my company" and "Some other departments also have safety/security-related primary KPIs" justifies that IT security should be allowed to just air-gap the company if it serves these goals.

About 'Default Deny': 'It's not much harder to do than 'Default Permit,' but you'll sleep much better at night.'

Great that you, the IT security person, sleeps much better at night. Meanwhile, the rest of the company is super annoyed because nothing ever works without three extra rounds with the IT department. And, btw., the more annoyed people are, the more likely they are to use workarounds that undermine your IT security concept (e.g., think of the typical 'password1', 'password2', 'password3' passwords when you force users to change their password every month).

So no, good IT security does not just mean unplugging the network cable. Good IT security is invisible and unobtrusive for your users, like magic :)

I think most of what a brain cell effectively does could be simulated with water channels, pulleys and gates - so don't expect humans to grok either.

>more risk averse than the OpenAI one

At least it's not sci-fi-risk averse ;)

Ok so to summarize: Credentials have been stolen using a rather common malware from some people that didn't protect their computers properly. A subset of those credentials were related to OpenAI - while at the same time this malware (or malware like this) is used to steal gmail-, outlook-, amazon-, facebook- and all other kinds of credentials of services where potentially sensitive information is often entered.

Wow, we really are at the point where you just need to insert "ChatGPT" into some boring random headline to make it news :)

It does make sense for russia (or at least Gazprom). They've cut deliveries through the gas pipelines anyway. Now they might have needed a reason not to pay penalties for contract violation. By blaming random terrorists or the US they can claim technical issues beyond their control.

>Jesus, I can’t believe how spoiled and entitled so many people are

The entitlement is called workers rights. People fought quite hard to get the ones we have right now. E.g. my grandfather was still working 6 days and 48h a week (same country as OP). Back then people also called the workers "entitled" who dared to ask for more than one free day per week.

As I see it, this movement will only be succesfully completed once people can rent your skills without also owning your body during that time.

The only relevant difference is in which part you use the word "force" in the description of the hypothetical world.

In the real world, however, no one is usally forced to WFH. But we were forced to WFO.

If you wonder why an argument might be controversial, it can helpful to imagine how it would sound like in mirror world:

Assume for a moment that working remotly and a flexible workday would have been always the default. And now some companies decide: Hey let's contractually enforce a 9 hour continuous workday where all our workers will be locked in a big ugly building that we build just for that purpose (Btw. at least one of the 9 hours will be unpaid because this is where people will have lunch. Also we won't reimburse anyone for their traveling expenses or their time spent during the commute).

Now read again the arguments you wrote to support this new idea.

The guy providing the data in the CA scandal was a credible scientist at the Universities of Toronto and Cambridge. His social media data collection back then was considered part of his legitimate research activities. It was funded by research grants, and nobody had a problem with that. That is, until some of the data he collected was potentially used for political microtargeting.

The thing is, Facebook and the other social media companies have never had any real interest to support research projects that collect and analyze their data. Why should they?

However, since the public outrage over the CA event they basically have carte blanche to deny all these requests - even from seemingly credible scientists - and just say: "Hey, we just want to prevent another CA."

To get rid of search engines like Google and Bing we don't need to build a new internet - we just need to build new search engines.

E.g., how about an open source spider/crawler that anyone can run on their own machine continuously contributing towards a distributed index that can be queried in a p2p fashion. (Kind of like SETI@home but for stealing back the internet).

Just think about all the great things that researchers and data scientists could do if they had access to every single public Facebook/Twitter/Instagram post.

Okayokay ... also think about what Google and FB could do if they could access any data visible to anyone (but let's just ignore that for a moment ;)