From the use of the historic concept of a "Cheque" (I assume auto-correct made that into "check") I assume you are talking about US banks? For some European banks I know, they assume a large faction of phones are compromised. They do assume the compromise is more limited on a phone and they scan for malware (as much as a single app is allowed to), but basically they just use the phone as 2nd factor where an attacker would have to compromise both devices to really gain anything. But they carefully monitor the situation and larger banks have pretty good real-time fraud detection these days.

Yes, I was wondering the samer things. Quality "journalism" brought to you by a "technology journalist".

That sounds to me like a childish belief. What mobile devices get you is a second computer that is not easily associated with your first one for an attacker (if you are careful). But they are just computers. Not special in any way except for the from-factor.

I guess too many people still see tech as "magic".

The fascinating thing is that there are still actually people that think they have nothing to hide.

You know it has been firmly established when the Government does not even drive surveillance data collection anymore, but simply is just another customer of the surveillance industry. Have fun with the upcoming fascism.

In a safety-critical real-time system? Yes. Most software is good with 99.999% availability or even lower. If your equipment gets wrecked on interruptions and/or hundreds of pople die, that does not cut it anymore. Most software makers never venture into that area, but industrial control systems are a bit of a different beast than "apps".

He probably has decided that last time was the test run and that this time his exceptional skills and insights will finally make him rich. The guy is probably lying even more to himself than to his investors.

On the level of individual responsibility, yes. But on the level of wanting to keep society going, no. For the second scenario, you need to restrict fraud and scams, because society needs a relatively high level of trust to not fracture and that means that you usually need to be able to rely on the claims made by people about their products.

Of course, some people think a working society is optional. Good luck with that.

The typical claim is not that "ChatGPT is not useful". That is just the dishonest propaganda version. The usual claim is that ChatGPT is not useful or outright harmful for a lot of the application scenarios claimed and only has limited use where it actually works, which is mostly improved search and text summarization. And even there it comes with the risk of hallucinations.

That sounds a bit different from what you just claimed, doesn't it? Of course, you being an AI fan may indicate you are not smart enough to see that difference. I recommend you take the statement I just made and have some LLM type Artificial Idiot explain to you what the difference is to "ChatGPT is not useful". Because while LLM-type AI is utterly dumb, it usually can perform on this very low level, even if you cannot.

That is an invalid comparison. Astrology at least produces reliable (if wrong) responses. LLM-Type AI cannot deliver that reliability.

He is doing the only thing he knows to do. And last time it sort-of worked out, didn't it?

In other news, a society that does not keep fraud to a low level, usually gets pretty bad economic problems from that.

Oh that part is really easy: Stop giving billions to AI startups.

Right now, the whole AI bubble is heavily subsidized by investor cash. Once the AI companies have to charge users the actual cost plus a profit margin, we'll see AI usage drop considerably. Because that shit ain't cheap.

does that mean the profits from his last scam are over, he needs a new job and has decided that honest work still is something for peasants?

I am currently trialing Lecture Streaming via BigBlueButton. So far it works well. If it continues to, I plan to make my teaching set-up Linux only. The only use for MS products left will be Teams for some conferences, but I hope the in-browser version will be good enough.

It is a figure of speech. Obviously, if MS ever had any real "glory", it was only with those without insight. Their products have always sucked. I remember wayyy back getting DR DOS on my first x86 computer and finding it a good product. Then I had do use MS DOS in some other context and found it laughably inferior on all counts.