You are confusing a text-channel with a DTP tool. Yes, I get you are stupid and contrarian, but this statement is really, really, really dumb.

Better software. I have accidentally opened malicious attachments myself or rather tried to. Know what happened? Absolutely nothing because my email setup does not call external applications.

I don't know if they will succeed; but that's why I suspect that one major entry attempt will be the "empower paraprofessionals" line; and specifically avoiding being construed as a 'medical device'.

Obviously medical device vendors aren't going to just ignore the possibilities; there's already a fair amount of signal processing going on in some areas and if 'AI' is either trendy enough to merit a rebrand of what they are doing already or promising enough to be an addition to the processing pipeline they'll certainly do it; but getting tagged as dealing in medical devices has significant regulatory implications that medical device outfits are familiar with but bot generalists are not; and, realistically, a lot of tech 'innovation' is really a mix of enough tech to make it look like 'tech' along with enough regulatory end-run to provide a cost advantage vs. the incumbent.

Ideally(from the perspective of the vendor) you'd essentially pull an Uber or an AirBnB and, when the medical device regulators are in earshot, be selling a product that is merely a humble, and useful, personalized reference and self guided continuing education aid that should be regulated like a pile of flash card(not at all); while, when the haggling over what nursing home stuff you need a nurse for and what you can do with a nurse assistant or patient care technician is being done have a bunch of plucky, heartwarming, paraprofessionals advocating for their right to do more to drive patient outcomes thanks to the glorious future of advanced personalized learning. The less lucrative; but probably softest, target would be the various nurse-staffed telephone and video link telehealth services that do first-line medical questions and 'is it probably fine/should you really get it looked at' type questions; which can presumably be legally replaced with generic call center bots if you strike all references to 'nurse' and put enough disclaimers; but would see greater consumer acceptance if you could still market them as 'nurse' or something that sounds similar.

I assume that some companies will be at least indirectly involved in both; but I suspect that you are really looking at two fairly distinct product 'tracks', so to speak:

People aren't going to ignore medical devices and well formalized specialties like radiology; those are the ones where you'll actually need to put in the work and deal with medical device certifications and ongoing scrutiny of your system's machine vision behavior vs. radiologist readings; but there's absolutely enough money on the table(along with potentially just-plain-unavailable capabilities with keyhole surgery tentacle robots or whatnot); but that is too obviously a 'medical device' to really play fast and loose.

Trying to chip away at nurses vs. paraprofessionals, though, seems like more fruitful ground for what's ultimately a savings-oriented regulatory end run with enough tech to not be too blatantly visible as such.

Not all of them are; but "Devin the AI software engineer" has had me in a weirdly stubborn torrent of ad spend, so I know at least someone is doing it(and the place is rotten with "AI SOC Analysts", including ones that basically just seem to be the same EDR heuristics the company was selling last year dumping text into an LLM that has been told to apply an executive summary tone); and you can't swing a stick without hitting someone describing a service account as a 'virtual employee' in a thought-leadership-for-morons thinkpiece. Definitely some of it going on.

My impression has been that the ones trying to sell to individuals either primarily or as the first move to create demand for business sales the the vocabulary of tools; but the ones trying to skip directly to c-levels looking for a crash project are much more likely to ascribe job descriptions to their bots.

They thought the purpose of these trainings are to reduce the chance of getting phished? A big NO.

These trainings are there to cover the asses of management, so that when someone in the company got phished, management can point to these trainings and say "We have done all we can, we are not responsible!".

Hence, to find out if these trainings are effective, researchers should have compared how badly management was held responsible after getting phished.

In a modern IT infrastructure, you get logs as to who downloaded what, and you will have alerting on that because one thing to catch is some user machine getting hacked and the attackers accessing a lot of files.

As usual, you are without insight. This is about selling to private customers.

In an entirely different situation. Apples and oranges.

In Germany, for example, messing with any core car system means it is not legal to drive on public roads anymore and your insurance is void. Hence really stupid idea.

AFAIK, the findings were that Bosch did not aid the fraud and had no design requirements to prevent what happened. You are blaming the maker of the screwdriver because it can be used to break open doors.

That is because it was not designed by security people. Engineers are often easily scammed, because most of them assume people are honest. And, to be fair, that is usually the case on engineering, because a lot of engineering designs get tested harshly in actual use. But not all and when you test for one of those you need the security engineering mind-set. If they even had one competent, say, IT security expert or general fraud expert in there, the fraud would have been discovered pretty much immediately and would likely never have happened. Opportunity creates criminals.

That is BS. It assumes a level of insight and control that is not there. Not even very strict regimes like the 3rd Reich or North Korea manage to "design" most things. At best, they can install some guardrails.

But thanks for using an Ad Hominem. It nicely shows you do not even believe your statement yourself.

That does not work well, AFAIK.

I doubt I can be drunk enough to fall for this crap even temporarily. What this reminds me of is the complex hallucinations some religions produce to make it harder to find out they are built entirely on hot air.

Indeed. Many of these people struggle hard. Reducing struggle to reasonable levels is commonly regarded as a good thing (unless you are a fascist or follower of some other inhumane ideology). Since it can only be managed, the potentially problematic question of a "cure" that does change personality characteristics (think lobotomy or other non-reversible atrocities) does not apply.