An AI can never be held accountable, therefore an AI must never always make a management decision.

That sounds… normal? and maybe even sensible, especially if LinkedIn does SSR, since that could allow the servers know how to tailor the content to the specific browser requesting a page.

Normally, I’d be reading about NPM security breaches and AI security breaches separately, but now I can get them in the same article! Truly amazing how technology has progressed.

Damn, they don’t even think the goonbot will sell? They really must be in a tough spot lmao

Finally, a use-case for AI—malware!

Sam Altman has cooked up a plan

Damn, off to a rough start already

Betteridge’s law my beloved

(It isn’t statistically true in practice, though 😔)

It’s a cool idea, but I don’t know if it’s $1B cool

Isreoracle

Damn, Motorola may really make a comeback with this!

Damn, a somewhat disenshittified Windows that still has support??

Looks like it’s the official server for Copilot, presumably for the community (e.g. support, etc) not internal communication, for what that’s worth

But you still can’t do that, you see, unless you’d like more visitors than usual.

was

Oh thank god

Cool! And with them, will go much of your current economy. Enjoy!

I’m sorry, but if you’re willing to give full access on your computer to a(n effectively) non-deterministic black box that is the cybersecurity equivalent of Swiss cheese, at this point in history, I’m afraid you deserve what’s coming your way. This lady should feel lucky that it only ran amok in her inbox.

“Security risks” is often an excuse, but it’s 100% on the money with this. AI is a security nightmare.

Ah, I found the official answer to my question in the definitions (definition 9):

“OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER” MEANS A PERSON THAT DEVELOPS, LICENSES, OR CONTROLS THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ON A DEVICE.

This still leaves room for ambiguity, though, especially when it comes to Linux: is the OSP the person who installs the OS (e.g. a sysadmin)? They control the operating system on that device. Or are they the individual/organization that deems what software counts as a given operating system (e.g. Microsoft or Linus)? They develop and license the operating system that happens to be on a given device. Maybe it’s both, but the context suggests the latter more strongly to me.

Sorry for the stupid question, but what would an “operating system provider” mean here? Does that mean “the organization that builds and distributes the operating system”? If so, Linux is sort of screwed in CO; even The Linux Foundation can’t act for Linux the same way Apple or Microsoft can for macOS or Windows respectively. Maybe Red Hat could, but only for their flagship distro RHEL, and the E stands for Enterprise, lest we forget.

If “operating system provider” were interpreted to mean “system administrator”, however (which is a stretch, but still), that might be a decent solution, since it has the effect of age-limiting content in an enforceable way, but keeps identity information from being centralized under a government or (single) private agency. The sysadmin for children would be parents, who are the only ones who would be providing the hardware, and that could work, especially if there was only the child’s account on the device (like a cell phone).

I dunno if the above is horribly ignorant; if so, I’m open to being more educated on the topic.

Unrelated, but damn I forgot how cool the web can be. This is such a fun website.