"Ah so you are an academic that knows nothing anyways". Nice way to totally expose yourself as completely clueless. And you cannot even read. Funny how that goes.

Well, basically every other engineering field has been dragged to maturity by idiots like this one creating really large catastrophes because they understand nothing. I guess it is time that software had one of those.

You are deep in delusion. Good luck, you are going to need it.

The vast majority of the software industry is acting even more stupid than usual. But a big shake-up was overdue anyways.

I do not get that, at all. Basic risk management is part of life, at least for me. It is automatic.

It is like tons of people cannot actually think. Almost if they are a different species.

Well, one of my two banks has an app as 2nd factor and the other I have a hard-token for. But for this story to make sense, it sounds like Bank of America allows username and password. Or maybe email as not-really-2nd-factor and the agent gets access to the email as well. Or something like that.

I get that banks do not want users to use LLMs. Some of their customers will get hit really badly before this becomes regular enough it will not be in the news anymore. Some of those hit will blame the bank. And the one thing banks really dislike is bad press.

Probably not. Would be nice though. Well, not that I use Google search anymore, but the others probably have the same situation.

Looks like basically nobody using AI can make it pay for itself. If they are honest.

Yes. That was what I tried at the beginning of the craze. Stuff you can easily look up (but should usually not need to look up), LLMs can do (mostly), but in the engineering I do I often run into things you cannot look up. Total failure and sometimes hallucinations on top. Since then, I occasionally check back, but nothing has changed really. Simple, well-known things LLMs can usually do, things that require actual insight LLMs cannot do. No change there. The illusion has gotten a bit better, but that is it.

Ah, no. Not even remotely. You are pushing a fallacy here, the "fallacy of experience" (https://antsstyle.medium.com/the-logical-fallacy-of-experience-1367653709f0). For some simple examples that may be within your grasp: You do not have to do hard drugs to be able to know doing them is not a good experience. Your also do not have to participate in a pyramid scheme to understand it is a scam and there is nothing to be gained. You may want to look up "cognitive surrender", to find out that using LLMs is actually pretty dangerous to you. You may want to look up the negative experiences actually good coders make with LLMs.

That said, I have used LLMs "productively", namely in research showing how utterly limited it is. This research is initiated by me and done by students in thesis work. And just last week I got (again) a few nice examples of failures from current frontier (!) models. Will probably make a good paper eventually. For the time being, I will stay away from using LLMs, too dangerous and no actual benefit to my work. My work is mostly insight-based, something LLMs cannot do, even if they can by now fake it well enough to impress people that are not that smart.

Well, ignorance, optimism and naiveness stem from not understanding the real world. Lack of risk management in doing things that can go horribly wrong fall in the same class. In the case at hand, anybody that actually looks at what gets reported in the mainstream press should be aware that LLMs are neither reliable not trustworthy. Coming to that conclusion does not require specialist knowledge or high intelligence. You just need to see what is.

If "stupid" is not scientific enough for you, replace with "intellectually limited with regards to insight into the functioning of reality". "Stupid" is a useful short form for that, as you seem to acknowledge in your statement about marketing.

I do fully agree to that statement about marketing. A prime current AI example is all those bad and mediocre coders claiming AI is great and makes them so much more productive, not realizing that AI will make coders on their level redundant and unemployed.

You think (or rather your LLM thinks) banks are depending on the user login as a security barrier protecting their internal software? That is not the case. Banks assume a significant part of the devices users are using to log into the online banking are compromised and hence they assume attackers have access to everything they expose to customers. They have used that assumption for at least the last 20 years, probably much longer.

Hence, sounds plausible - is total bullshit. Typical LLM quality resulting from lack of insight in their training data and no native insight whatsoever.

Ah, sorry. I am forgetting you are probably thinking about an US bachelor's. Things are a bit different in Europe, even if named similar. My mistake.

What crappy ass bachelor's program is that? I do deep dives and I teach on bachelor level.