She only missed the memo because she was new to the game. Had it been directed by a more established CEO instead it would have been brushed under the rug. They always protect their own kind, and she wasn't (yet) one of them.

Just wait until we get to see how hard CEOs will pull to defend Elon when Tesla fails to turn in the earnings his bonus is dependent on.

The CEOs aren't spending their own money. If they somehow don't win the arms race, they can always look back and say they needed to spend more. If they can declare themselves winners, they will look brilliant and be able to demand huge pay raises from their companies. Even if they nearly drive their companies to bankruptcy on the matter, they'll have other execs from other companies to point to as examples of people who either did worse, or won by spending more.

It was a good time to be a CEO in January of this year. It's an even better time now.

I was a CWA member throughout grad school. It may be that they just put a lot more effort into the larger companies where their members were employed (think Verizon as one great example) but we didn't see much help from them as grad students. I remember one meeting my first year where we were reminded we could always ask for a union rep anytime we were talking with our PI, and that was about it.

My take-away from the various comments on my parent post is there are clearly multiple auto markets: US/North America, Europe, China, Third World (and I'm sure that's an over-simplification, particularly that last category.) Those markets are defined by government policies, availability of various fuel sources, commitment to ecological goals, economics/consumer wealth, etc.

On a related note, I had a discussion with a classmate who owns a relatively large electrical contractor (residential/business/some industrial) firm. I asked what it would take to add a subpanel to support an EV Charger, an Induction range (current one is gas), and at least one mini-split. He pointed out that they used to do 200 amp panels, but now for a house my size, the default is 400 amps, because of all that stuff that I'd like to add that raises electrical consumption (and therefore electrical generation and supply demand.)

I wonder how much a EU move away from EVs is motivated by EU auto companies having the same problems competing with Chinese EV manufacturers that US automakers are having. My guess is that EU countries, particularly Germany, are even more dependent on their automakers (as a percentage of GDP) than the US is.

Even if they get substantial subsidies and trade protection in the US, their products can't compete in the rest of the world.

Now there's significant defense value in the domestic auto industry. But we can't maintain the defense value without an economically viable industry that includes both R&D and production.

This goes to the heart of why the Trump Tariffs are a failed economic strategy. They're all stick, with no carrot to establish and maintain the domestic industries that Trump claims he wants.

It makes sense to me that a relatively narrowly focused/narrowly trained AI system eventually beats humans for vulnerability detection. And significant false positives are in this scenario probably acceptable, much more than false negatives. Someone will have to work off those false positives (and presumably feed them back so the tool learns and gets better.)

But at the end of the day, the question is "How do you trust the tool is correct?" Here, at least, you can write a reasonably testable requirement. "Must detect security vulnerabilities" and provide a definition of (which I'm probably not qualified to write :-) ) for 'security vulnerability'. But then someone has to figure out what the verification approach will be, and how that's established/documented. Should there be a formal registry of 'trusted AI vulnerability scanners"? Certainly if we expect such tools to be used for product qualification ("Your website must be shown to contain no vulnerabilities, as inspected by this tool and set of procedures we trust."), we have to have a way to establish that trust.

This is a good news story, but there's much more work to be done to turn this into production. And a lot of that work is not strictly technical, but managerial (probably including government participation, e.g. a NIST set of qualification criteria and maybe even a registry of tools that meet those criteria.)

These laws they are referring to, they are only fooling themselves when they pretend that they might apply to the richest people in the world. It doesn't matter how "clear" one might think trademark laws to be, when the other side can spend more on lawyers than the GDP of many small nations, you don't have a chance of winning.

All Mars trips that involve landing on Mars will be one way for the foreseeable future. We're likely 200 years away from being able to get someone back from Mars, and that's only if we find a fuel source there.

Thank you for the correction on that. I had always heard it was for the NY Times, until I looked it up on wikipedia.

I would counter though that even with the Times of London being considered a "centre-right" newspaper in the UK, it is still a "far left" paper compared to anything Trump associates himself with.

That Times New Roman is of course named for one of their least favorite newspapers.

Or maybe we should, so we can watch some heads explode and witness the next round of glorious infighting.

That's an understatement. I know I've been predicting the fall of this conservablog for years now but seriously how will we know if there's even someone left to turn out the lights? Some front page articles generate discussions now that are barely longer than ones I've had with my dog.

OR, companies will have to pay Apple to put their AI applications onto Apple devices, the same way that Google now pays for search placement on iOS.

I suspect big LLMs will be desperate for customers, given the huge revenues they need to pay off that investment.

My money (literally) is on Apple here.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fearthquake.usgs.gov%2Fea... The USGS earthquake.usgs.gov site does a great job tracking earthquakes worldwide. There's valuable information for both casual readers and for geologists. (Even though we covered 'beachball' moment tensors in my Structural Geology course, I never really grokked how to interpret the diagrams, and always have to look up samples to see which way the slip is going.)

And I don't think I'd hire anyone who worked for Meta, either. To me, that's a reflection of "ethical failure".

Fortunately, I'm now retired.

dave