It's a transitory need, and the role won't remain available in this firm for long, but make hay while the sun shines. Just don't use the income as a reason to assume a large mortgage.

... gives AI tools prod access to do production deployments at this stage of maturity?

Honestly, beat them with sticks. Sarbanes Oxley gave us a lot of shot, but segregation of duties is not a bad idea.

"Replit's AI coding service deleted a production database despite explicit instructions not to modify code."

Good Lord. The genie of the lamp will fuck you over if it can. A database can argued to not be code.

Welcome to the internet, First time here? Let me show you around. :)

What? The math works out to favour the insurers? Have you told anybody else about this?

We have to get the word out. Up until now people have assumed the insurers were altruists. The people need to know!

But that's not where it would land.

3 devices covered. That's $320, a bit better than $960.

No - I don't. And that's the point. The ask is not a particularly useful tool by which to measure intelligence.

The OP is proposing a set of tasks that, if passed, they wouldn't accept as proof. In fact, what they're really doing is presenting the axiom that AI isn't intelligent, but then tying themselves in knots to present it as falsifiable without it actually being so.

Sure they'll take notice. It just wont change any thing.

The wealthy can absorb the damage or complete destruction of their property. What they would not want to do is sabotage the circumstances that made them wealthy enough to acquire the property. The holders of wealth aren't likely to want to destabilize the world order so they can hold onto property that's at risk. They'll push that risk downstream first.

So I just put your questions to ChatGPT, albeit in a slightly modified form.

- Over the next 25 years, what will be the major factors in U.S. Presidential elections?
- Please formulate a campaign strategy for the Democrats for 2025

I guarantee you that what I got back was reasonably coherent and absolutely better than what I would get from a random person tasked out of nowhere with the same question.

Obviously I didn't ask it to create one for every candidate and party for every year. That's a silly ask. Leaving that criteria in place, there isn't a single intelligent human on the planet.

Or that watches based on quartz crystals are just an idle curiosity because they aren't built using intricate gear assemblies.

"We're under a ransomware attack? No... don't get an actual demand. Blame the owner of the weak credentials? No, no need to make them feel bad. Let's just close up shop and call it a day."

This just screams opportunity. My guess is that the owners are not particularly unhappy here. If the company was a healthy going concern, I'll eat my hat.

* In app purchases

...nothing stops them from walking away.

To me it sounds like pragmatic business. Do these "questionable" titles earn them enough to make it worth the cost? Probably not.

There would have to be really good reasons to march down the path of higher transaction fees and alternative payment processors. If ultimately that path was financially good for Steam, they would have done it. But I doubt it's worth all the hassle.

The idea that an extremely mainstream company with the profile of Steam would resort to "high risk merchant accounts" to prop up content they don't have a desire to defend seems unrealistic.

The payment processors have all the power here. I doubt Steam particularly wanted to do this - otherwise that content would have been blocked before payment was an issue. And since the threat really is existential, Steam will bend. No shade to them. They aren't in the business of protecting freedoms. They just want to sell games.

My guess is that it's the mixed situation that is problematic. After all, porn companies use providers that take credit cards. Gambling sites, too. But those companies aren't selling the equivalent of Barbie dolls and bubblegum as well.