It is a relief that it's only one one bank that has a large number of security flaws,
and not all of the major financial institutions, all at the same time,
That would be awful.

I credit the steady hand of leadership for guiding the ship of commerce thru the Straits of Mythos.

Some people really enjoy getting beaten by the chain of command.
Takes the load off all that thinkin'.
Here, have more AI.

Nobody at Anthropic knows how it does what it does anymore, not really.
They can ask it and it will tell them things about itself,
but after just a few code turns, what was generated passes unit tests, it passes QA,
it's a programming miracle. Why bother looking at the code anymore?

And pretty quickly, no human knows how anything of it really works,
and if they want to make modifications, the code base is now out of the programmer's hands.
Someone (or itself) has to ask *it* to make the changes, forever,
because it holds the only architecture truth, and context of its revision history.

I used GPT to generate stuff, and yeah, it's quite remarkable.
But I also saw how seductive it was and soon, how after maybe three revisions,
I'd have to let it own the code and do all the work. I mean why not?
Any changes I make myself now brings the additional task of telling the AI what I did and why,
so it doesn't discard what I did at some (unknown) point in the future.

Other than the forever escalating cost of paying for a simulated employee
that you can no longer do without, it's amazing.

Monitor, certainly. But why would they have remote control that can set a FREEZER to 50C?

The manager would.

I guess Yandex's DR sites don't have the latest updates installed.

Given that Russia can't refine crude or deliver fuel and now it's data centers are dropping like flies, they're the ones heading for the bronze age.

Sooner or later, the oligarchs will be showing Putin the window. He's making it hard to make a dishonest buck.

Exactly this. I have experimented with using AI, but absolutely forbid it to actually check in code. I just let it show me it's proposal. It can be useful at that, but often needs to be prodded about criteria it left out and frequently the final result needs a re-write for maintainability at least. It has a tendency to use really convoluted logic which can be greatly simplified without changing the result.

It does much better as a search tool. It's pretty good at finding exactly where some feature is implemented in a large codebase.

You wrap them in plastic carefully first. The cameras are perfectly safe in the protective concrete packaging.

I remember listening in on a great phone call to a network provider about sending someone to pick up their expensive Cisco router. It ended with "in 30 days, it's going in the dumpster.

I personally 'uninstalled' another router by disconnecting the fiber cables...with side cutters. 2 months later, they actually tried to bill us for bandwidth we supposedly used from the completely disconnected router. We sent them a picture.

An AI ultra-lint finds some vulnerabilities, so what does management do?
They have another AI they rented "fix" the vulnerabilities it knows about.

And soon, no human can know and work reliably on the code.
Management poured money into the initiative, and will not be proven wrong:
"AI found what humans didn't, so AI has proven to be a better 'programmer' than any human.'

Sure, something small isn't a big deal for a pro, but a code base significant enough
to undergo the expense of this process and then set the CIO's hair on fire,
say, the access permissions system for a major bank,
will soon be pwned by the AI vendor, forever more.

The first step is "AI, write this". It was easy, it worked, it's magical. You inspect the code, it's not bad.
The next step (because why do it yourself now?), is "AI, extend the thing you wrote", and it does it.
You test it, it works ok, maybe you glance at the code this time, maybe not.
New requirements come down, and you try tossing the AI the raw requirements and it
poots out a thing good enough to pass QA.
This time, you don't look at the code at all. Why bother?

And now, the AI owns the code base, and your organization is forever captive.
This is happening, at scale, everywhere, right now.
Good plan, frat boys. Enjoy your bonuses. The won't last much longer.

The difference is that if you pay people to monkey around with things, you get a non-revocable perpetual license to the result. With license rental, you get a perpetual bill. It's the same rent trap as individuals get stuck in but with less excuses.

Yes, and the reason is that they stupidly painted themselves into a corner and never thought about an exit strategy. Had they been thinking about the possibility that they might one day need to migrate from the beginning, it would be much cheaper to do so now.

That's the thing about painting yourself into a corner, a little better planning at the start can always avoid it with little to no additional effort.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again for those who arrived lete: If you give an AI agency of any kind, imagine everything you ask of it to be appended with "by any means necessary", because that' how it will interpret it. Slander, doxxing, and murder will definitely NOT be off the table even if you explicitly forbid them. That's the problem.

Honestly it should be called string toolbag. It contains some math that might (or might not) one day be useful in constructing a theory but it honestly has never actually been predictive enough to call it a theory.