Indeed. It is like the whole company has a secret death wish.

Hmm. Mine is too! And my own mail server also still works.

About human average I would say. Maybe a bit above. The sad state of affairs is that humans generally are stupid and disconnected from reality.

Au contraire. This is a very smart move. The difference is these people have looked at the risks and were horrified.

Warnings are insufficient for regular users. That is well known. What you need to do is making it _hard_ for users to do something this stupid.

Obviously. And essentially every online business will follow. People are generally stupid and LLMs are generally insecure. Some of the idiots will heed the warning, most will not but the businesses affected can and should say "we warned you, you did this to yourself". Some particular assholes will still sue, but ToS explicitly forbidding the use of AI agents should be an effective defense.

The average population is a mix of idiots, greedy assholes and psychos, with some insightful people in there as well. You think that kind of mix can do it without leadership? Not likely.

And if people were generally smart, they would not need to even state that. But people are not and some idiots will sue United for things they essentially did to themselves. So this ban.

They will not tell you? If you are in the EU, you can try a GDPR data request. That one has 30 days to comply and real teeth. Employee names in there are already enough to make that request.

Yes, keep telling yourself that. Good luck, you are going to need it.

The "Magic battery!" crap is getting reeeeeeaaalllly old. As are the idiots that fall for it.

Yes. Sad as that is, this is very likely the only viable way forward.

While it is deeply troubling that the only capable leadership in this question seems to come from China, this is the best chance for human civilization to survive. The West has proven itself to be not capable enough (Europe) or completely incapable (the US). And time is running out fast.

Yes, this will give China power and influence it should not have. But there seem to be no alternatives left.

Funny, you are just describing your own failure here. No, you cannot put effective security guardrails into an LLM. Its statistical properties make that impossible. Sure, you can make lower-impact problems less likely, but attackers are not users that get told to put glue on pizza in some rare cases. Attackers go for the rare cases and statistics is no defense.

But I see you are one of the completely brainwashed cultists anyways. And you have no clue how IT security actually works.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Of course you need to get really competent IT security experts and for some things they will tell you that you cannot do them. But "the experts do not know how to secure this" is bullshit. And no, you very obviously _cannot_ expect an LLM itself to implement any actually reliable security mechanisms. That another thing a really competent experts would explain to these people.