Why?
Google added that it doesn’t believe its own Gemini models were used, but still has “high confidence” an AI model was part of discovering the vulnerability and weaponizing an exploit.
No, really, why? If Google itself or their models didn’t discover the vulnerability, how would they know genAI was used on the discovery of the vulnerability and weaponization (interestingly, not “creation”) of an exploit?
The headline (as in AI replacing jobs) is as real as the CRAP (Computer Rendered Artificial Picture) it uses.
I think it might be very hard for AI-pilled leadership to back off from their claims and AI mandates and it would not help the hype that they might be banking on/profiting from.
Since they’re using (now expensive) genAI and productivity isn’t improving, because it almost never does, rhen they need to do something to appease stakeholders and offset the cost of using genAI, ofc.
That and keeping employee’s perception of power and self worth down, so they keep working their asses off in the hopes of not being the next in line.
Andreas Kling’s ladybird? Don’t wanna touch that with a 10ft pole.
https://hyperborea.org/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/
Look, I have a genAI aversion as much as anyone on this community. But…
Is that what was stated in a federal court arguably true? I think so. Trying to define what someone is “expected” to achieve with a statement and using that as some kind of proof? That’s too rich for my taste.