right now we don't have any real customers that use it - as the plugin did not sell yet.

but from testing at customer sites with real people that would use it - we got only positive feedback. which is not hard to imagine: the RAG + LLM enables less experienced users to navigate a huge and complex network of information.

but it for sure is also a buzzword execs like to see: they talked to us because we have AI. saw that the main product is good. bought the main product and decided the AI is too expensive.

in the end it doesn't matter to me. the 2w of AI was a fun sidequest and it left us with a passive boost for sales.

@Baleine@jlai.lu already mentioned one. And it does not really matter what the can do specifically to you. It matters what they can do and that you have no control. If you want to know what people can do with just your username look at this project: https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock. Now imagine what someone with more data can do.

nothing to hide nothing to fear, huh?

And i thought at least after Snowden we learnt this is bs...

While i agree with most of what you said, i think you might be falling into the trap of assuming the curve continues as it had.

Like most technology, ANNs will follow a sigmoid curve. Turing was already working with the same theories. While I did my education in IT, we had really interesting ANNs working, but only nerds would be excited by them. Now ChatGPT surprised the rest of the world and I would assume we are in the steep part of the sigmoid function.

But the problem is, that we can only determine where we where, if we look back. There is no way to say whether NOW is just the start, middle or towards the end of the curve.

What I can say is that now, LLMs and other implementations of AI are able to replace a trainee in my line of work. They still need a lot of supervision and are a tool, which can speed up work. This may lead to other problems: If companies decided to not take on the expensive task of training people and replacing them with cheaper AI - at some point we will run out of well trained veterans.

I am not saying that throwing money at the problem solves it.

But if you want public services to also cover non-profitable areas/groups, the government needs to step in with certain measures.

Something that sounds like a production flaw to me is how the IRS gets corrupted. Sadly the article did not go too much into detail, but gyroscopes and accelerometers should not be affected by GPS data. Sure, if they do not sync up with current data, error propagation becomes a problem - especially on long flights. But i reckon gradually depreciating data is better than maliciously wrong data.

The article mentioned, that large plains have 2 GPS receivers. The spooving seems less traditional (sending wrong data with more power), but more sending a lot of incomplete data to confuse the receiver. This should introduce a desynchronization of the two receivers present, and alert the internal systems. Since it is detected, that something went wrong with the GPS, the 3 IRS can calculate the position from recorded data. This is a fallback and accuracy will depreciate. But if the pilot is aware it could still be valuable information. Additionally it is more scalable than air traffic control having to navigate affected planes.

You didn't answer my question though. If someone turns off their TV during commercials, the content is not delivered. If someone puts up a "please no ads" sticker, it becomes illegal to put advertisement in the mailbox (at least where i life). In both cases the materials are not delivered. Is that theft?

Your argument hinges on technical limitation: Since it cannot be confirmed whether snail mail advertisement was looked at, the delivery person gets paid for putting in the letterbox. Since the TV station does not know exactly how many people watch their commercial breaks, they get paid for broadcasting. Since streaming services can relatively accurately check how many times an ad was played, they only get paid for the exact number and it is stealing to not download it.

TV stations nowadays have much more advanced capabilities and they do know rather accurately how many devices are watching their signal. So if an advertiser wants access to this data and sees that people turn off their devices during commercials as @Dontfearthereaper123 described - should the advertiser be allowed to pay less? If the advertiser pays less, does turning off your TV become stealing?

If YouTube started to (legally) access your webcam. Would closing your eyes and plugging your ears during ads become stealing?

Everyone who can read your unencrypted traffic has the possibility to intercept your encrypted stuff. So it is really not that hard.

But you don't seem to be bothered too much about that possibility. So lets agree to disagree.

If i want to sniff your traffic, ill set up another machine as MITM attack.

I guess as long as you stay inside a secure company network, it wouldn't be that bad. But if you go through the WWW, my advice is to manually add trusted hosts.

I hope for you, that you don't SSH into any random machine and just import their cert.

Usually you know the machines you are trying to connect to. That gives you the ability to add their cert to your trusted hosts before connecting the first time. So for browsing the WWW this makes not much sense, since you connect to way too many unknown hosts. It would create a 'red is green' mentality where users just import any unknown cert.

The only similarity i see, which makes sense, would be e-banking and such. The bank could send you their certificate with the login credentials by post.