Washer dryer combo.

Queso Cristo for the Spanish speakers

This simply came out of me challenging the assertion in a comment higher up stating that a company still needed a CEO/person to be held liable for what the LLM could do. I didn’t think it was that black and white.

See now this is interesting. I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions and what individuals can be held liable for. As long as a company using this “CEO ai can demonstrate reasonable frameworks were in place around the decisions it was acting upon, such as “hmm maybe we won’t eat the first born child of every customer or let’s not spend the companies full cash reserves on crack”, I think there are protections from liability.

I believe the corporation itself is treated as a distinct legal entity for litigation purposes and shields officers of the company unless there are specific circumstances around any individual. I don’t think there is a legal requirement for a corporation to have a CEO. I think this just further confirms the idea of the CEO “role” being fully automated to be more than viable and a genuine costs savings. Much lower risk than relying on AI to replace skilled technical functions.

Someone with more corporate legal knowledge could provide further insight.

I have been on the cloud vendor side forced into using these crappy Microsoft protection tools because of the daft Azure compliance framework. Customers would ask for your score on this and your score was impacted by how many of these very expensive services you had enabled. THEY DID NOT WORK! We had an independent security testing org prove that uploaded malware was half flagged by defender for storage but then no subsequent downstream events were triggered. Microsoft simply said “known issue and will be fixed at some point”. Un-fucking-believable. Azure compliance framework is 100% an Azure services upsell versus a genuine security focus initiative.

Beat me to it! I was going to say we should refer to propaganda material as Bernays Sources.

I see no reason US based AI companies would not carry the same risk especially with the well documented cases of groups like the NSA openly asking US technology companies to provide back doors.

You hit the nail on the head.

Translating for the Linux and Mac folk

“run”

“suit-o run”

I can’t believe I spelled Benadryl Cummerbund correctly but left out the word “be” so it read like racist era Tarzan made the comment.

Benedict Cumberbatch would be better suited in a Batman movie playing the Pengwing.

Edit: fixed missing “be”

In Australia at Coles supermarkets, you get frequently blocked by the stupid new AI monitored smart gates if you have not purchased anything and it requires a staff member to open the gates. All done in an attempt to address increasing instances of shoplifting. A better approach, in a cost of living crisis, to reduce shoplifting is to not keep raising grocery prices constantly and advertising now proven misleading discounts. Coles and Woolworths have been making record profits during this time. The real theft is happening in the stores but not by the shoppers.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Only one of them looks turned on.

Vote for Trimp!

This has a real “How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren’t Real" dumbass vibe to it.

I like that the articles main image looks like a giant gold turd.

Lions, Giraffes, Bonobos and Tigers, oh my!