Try refreshing Firefox. On opening it shows two recommendations for Google; a large "VPN" button in the address bar; a toast asking me for my weather location; the address bar tries to cross sell me three Mozilla products: "Monitor, Relay and VPN".
I'm not sure how the new AI stuff works as I never enabled it, but apparently that's there, too.
I'm always wondering how hard it would be to just remove the hardware for spying. Just keep enough hardware to make it a dumb panel, remove the webos logic boards, wifi antenna, etc.
This can be very useful for urban planning. you could have an agent investigate the optimal spot for a new datacenter, examine solar power installations, and so on.
I have the same sentiment. Who assures me this video isn't sent to the manufacturer for "quality control" reasons? Can it be used in court in case of an accident? Will my insurance ask access to monitor my driving? Can it be used for detecting phone use?
Therefore, these cameras get a sticker, or a small printout of my head, looking alert, put in front of the camera. These systems only cause extra distraction, they do not reduce it - it feels like having a constant driving exam.
That would put full blame on the tech staff and let the C-suite get away. The success of a software product is measured by sales and user base, so the more successful their sales and marketing are, the higher the damages will be for the tech staff.
I am of the opinion that companies and their management should be personally liable for damages caused by bad software, not their employees. They created the structure, hired everyone (and perhaps didn't hire QA), and invested in it to make a huge profit.
I would argue the outcome of setting up a perverse incentive structure and failing to hire QA is pretty damn predictable, so that's entirely consistent with what I said :)
On a more serious note, I'm not saying "just make programmers liable for the code they write", and leave it at that. I'm saying that, when you sell a piece of software, someone needs to sign-off on that software being fit for purpose. It's that someone who's ultimately liable. Absent some explicit firebreak, that sign-off implicitly happens with the CTO or CEO.
I don't think they'll let the chain of managers above you handle the llm directly. That is just too much risk of incompetence. Instead, there will be micro teams (1 dev, 1 sre, 1 product owner) that are meta manageed by a LLM. And their llm reports directly to a higher up's llm. And software will diversify to prevent all these supply chain attacks we've seen lately.
The first time I pasted a screenshot of a PR review thread, adding just "I had some review comments, fix them" - and it perfectly solved everything, made small commits, and pushed it upstream - this was such a shock.
I now try to keep pushing the boundaries and see where it stops understanding my intention. Give it impossible tasks, gigantic projects, complex architectures. Last result: I wrote a complete OS including MPI, TCP/IP, and a GUI from scratch in only a week, while investing just a few hours a day in it. It even runs Doom!. Coding as a profession is over, but there's such a difference between the result if you approach this with a professional mindset, that I think the software engineering discipline can still provide massive value.
I now foresee a future where law firms have models trained on all the transcriptions of individual judges, lawyers and prosecutors, and run agents against them to decide on the optimal strategy for a case.
Agree, though I've also heard from a lawyer to be very careful trusting an LLM for legal advise, and I believe them because the law is insanely nuanced (they disagree with me on this) just talk to a room of lawyers about what should be "simple" clean cut legal issues, and they might ALL disagree based on nuanced reasons and personal experiences with cases.
I'm not sure how the new AI stuff works as I never enabled it, but apparently that's there, too.
reply