The automative vs. augmentive distinction that AI companies and the ownership class want you to believe in is nonsense meant to keep the working class calm as their job opportunities dwindle away. The only difference between them is a quantity threshold. Augmentive means multiplying the number of jobs available by a number greater than zero but less than one (as fewer people can do the same work), automative means multiplying the number of jobs available by zero. Both mean jobs are lost, the only difference is how many remain.

This sounds like it was written by someone who actually knows what they are doing, so I assume that they know better than I; but I am surprised to hear that it is impersonating a system dll; since (in all comparatively recent windows versions) system components are signed. Absolutely tons of fuckery you can do to them and around them; but if dpapi.dll doesn't have a signature that checks out the mechanisms that try to keep OSes up and running on marginal hardware subject to random power loss will likely eventually object and attempt a repair, even if there isn't any more paranoid EDR tooling in place.

Is the on-disk copy of dpapi.dll untouched and only the in-memory instance tampered with?

I just can't believe that It was the guys with their finger on GPU allocations, not just the expendable PC OEM they were trying to throw under the bus, the whole time. Whoever could have guessed?

This could be my next phone but has two big problems I see immediately. No earpiece so you can't, you know, hold it up to your ear and make calls like on a normal phone, you either need to have a bluetooth earpiece at all times or use speakerphone. The other thing I don't like is the Blackberry-like form factor. Nothing beats or comes close to the landscape slider layout. That said if it's open-source hardware I could at least potentially mod up a landscape slider version with an earpiece.

The available information isn't terribly specific; but on the surface it doesn't sound any deeper into application internals than it already does.

You can certainly go deeper into etw trace hell; but Task Manager knows how much CPU time you are eating, your memory consumption metrics, your network traffic, and has a (currently less granular) look at your consumption of GPU time. It also having a view of consumed NPU time seems totally analogous for a new flavor of coprocessor. Only one that might involve gory poking at the application(though I'd assume would be more logically pulled from the GPU driver) would be distinguishing "GPU Neural Engine" from GPU utilization generally.

lol, like phys.org (somewhere between journalism and breathless huckterism) has never got crucial facts or inferred conclusions wrong.

College press releases, science journalism, and medical journalism THRIVE on hyperbole and overexaggerated / misunderstood conclusions like this.

The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.

Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.

Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.

So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.

Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.

> No. /end topic.

Yup. Davis' or Betteridge's Law: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Or at least legally bind it to get a 4-day workweek temporarily.

There will be even more market for obscene luxuries for the rich, that's their plan to keep the economy from imploding. Everyone else gets Universal (Very) Basic Income if they're lucky, or terrafoam or mass graves if they're not.

On the contrary, I think most of your comment is as relevant as ever. A carefully designed UI is still better for almost any specific task than what "agents" will produce. It will probably be more efficient to describe what you want precisely enough to get it right. It will not be undermined by problems like non-repeatability, non-determinism and hallucinations that are inherent in LLM-backed agents.

Agents can be quite effective at getting something that seems about right, as long as you don't care too much about the details. And of course they get there much quicker than doing it manually as a human. This is useful for some tasks, and why they have become popular.

Unfortunately, it turns out that for many of the things we really care about, "about right" doesn't cut it. Right now, today, the software industry is already being overwhelmed by AI slop. It's hard to believe, but it's still only been a few months since agentic development processes arrived on the scene. And yet after just those few months of management trying to replace real developers with agents, we can see the slow-motion train wreck happening right before our eyes. And in return, where are the new applications that radically improve on what we had before thanks to all this added "productivity"? If this tech is going to change the world as the AI tech bros and the sycophantic CxOs kneeling at their feet would have us believe, where's my flying car?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of AI-generated cybersecurity nightmares...

Agreed; I was going to say the same about _worth_. Markets may price their stock there. But I am not seeing a path or rev / profit model thatâ(TM)s making that make sense.

Maybe /. could point ai at their comment input / display code⦠getting escape-code alts to â is a 90s thing.

Agreed; I was going to say the same about âworthâ(TM). Markets may price their stock there. But Iâ(TM)m not seeing a path or rev / profit model thatâ(TM)s making that make sense.

It is. The fact that our dominant desktop operating systems are still using security models from last century is probably the #2 disaster of modern tech security, coming in just behind so much software with potential security implications still being written in languages like C and C++ at #1. And the understandable yet still deeply regrettable reason for both disasters is the same: momentum.