Fascinating. The wave of attacks using AI and attacks against AI is just starting. This crap will not be secure for a long time. It may never be secure.

Obviously, this means "don't think successfully". But I get that idea is too complex for you.

Google search was already really bad 5 years ago. That is about when I stopped using it.

They are making all the dumb mistakes the banking system made a long time ago, just larger and more pathetic.

"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.