Which is nonsense. There is nothing new under the sun. People have been kicking off interactions to complex to fully imagine all possible outcomes for as long as we have had laws, and the law has had approaches to assigning responsibility anyway.

Say you are back country camping in a national park. You absolutely can be held responsible if your campfire gets out of control and you start a forest fire, and you are found to have acted 'carelessly'. Even if you had a back country permit, and even if the park rules allow campfires.

We are not in uncharted territory here as how to apply standards like negligence. We may very well have gaps in our current law where various hacking and electronic abuse laws don't cover a negligent mens rea, but that could be easily fixed. It just takes little amendment to change a 'knowingly' to 'negligently' and its fixed. What we lack is a public will to hold these people accountable for anything. This is I think why they are so desperate to go public even while their actual financials SUCK...They want to cerement themselves as TBTF entities.

Sometimes the worst port of incident response is the responders not knowing when to just STFU.

Honestly what a statement to make. Nobody breaks into a system exfils and bunch of records without authorization without some intention to miss use the information. I guess there is a edge case where it is 'just a stunt' or part of some pentest/proof of concept exercise, in the latter case though it isn't an incident and is authorized just not thru ordinary procedure.

All saying you have no indication the information has been miss used is really saying is - it is absolutely being used against us (collectively) or our personnel individually AND we don't have the intelligence capability to identify how or whom specifically..

This is worth a mod up ^

5k is a heck of a lot of headcount for what Mongo seems to have in terms of scope of product offerings and support services.

They are positioning AI as the nuclear weapons of the 21st century, angling for a nationalization as a strategic weapon when the bottom drops out of it.

The AI bubble bursting will wreck the economy far harder than the Dotcom bubble did. And the dynamic is OBVIOUS. This is not an "if" problem, it's a "when" problem.

If AI produces a maximal result along the lines of what the frontier labs suggest, it'll eat fifty million jobs, which will wreck the economy far harder, and for far longer.

The constant chatter about AI breakout is half legitimate concern and half positioning to nationalize it, shielding the circular dealing crew from consequences.

This will not be Skynet; as a society we are far too primed to envision events that can be told in a single two hour action adventure with a clear, satisfying ending. When the historians get to this they will note the breakout happened 2025 - 2027 -- because that will be the time where human network threats enhanced by AI will starting further enhancing AI.

There are no "sides" to this, it'll be like the African savanna - lions, leopards, hyenas, cheetahs, wild dogs, servals & caracals, clear down to my personal favorite, the black backed jackal. A network of carnivores of various sizes pursue networks of herbivores. Nation states, corporations, non-state actors, activist groups, talented individuals; all are making use of AI in conflicts already.

The genie can not be put back in the bottle, the open models are only a little behind the frontier, and things are going to keep happening no matter what bellicose policy pronouncements come from an increasingly irrelevant Washington, D.C.

I'll be riding the Claude subsidy until it ends, then hopefully have acquired a potent professional GPU or unified memory setup of my own. Won't be nearly as quick, but it'll keep me moving.

Now scale that thinking up by whatever percentage of eight billion people have technical capabilities. That's the future.

At minimum people have a duty of self care. Why are they expecting others to do that job for them!

I am not even arguing we should not help in hard cases, from both a policy and an ethical standpoint. However suggesting the in-action someone makes us responsible for those outcomes is insane.

Every type of law enforcement ever, has killed an innocent or two; especially in situations where people are protesting the law and large numbers of people are propagandized into obstructing law enforcement. ICE has a pretty damn good record here actually all things considered.

If you want to assign responsibility for these deaths, maybe take a hard look at the policy, organizations, media, legal system, prior executives who created a situation where we had massive numbers of people in unresolved extra legal status and allowed that problem to continue compounding for three decades. That is not party thing, either plenty of inaction under Bush etc to point at. Here is the dirty little secret about the who immigration conversation. Self interested liars who have a lot of media influence keep claiming Trump is the on violating the law here, when in fact he is the first person in the last 30 years to actually try to do what the IIRIRA actually requires the federal government to do. The Constitution requires the president to " âoetake care that the laws be faithfully executed", literally Clinton, Bush, and Obama, should constitutionally speaking have faced impeachment and conviction over IIRIRA!

No it hasn't killed a single person, not one. The conditions the locals have allowed to persist in places where USAID formerly was providing whatever...it was providing is what killed those people. Inaction in the form of lack of prevention where it requires concentrated effort and importantly you are not the proximate cause whatever the calamity might be in the first place is not equivalent to acting (killing).

Where was the EU? Where was the CCP? Where was the ANC? Where was OPEC or for that matter Walmart Corporation :-P How come none of them stepped in to fill the gap. What absolves them of culpability?

Personal shoppers etc are a thing; but what is different here is the scale.

If Amazon's experience is so bad, that is what that is maybe the market will move to walmart.com; not really the point.

The point is that letting the AI Boys become an intermediary between every enterprise and most people will NOT be a good thing. I am not saying Amazon isnt a bad actor or isnt hypocritical here on a broader context. I am saying that shop keeps of all stripes should be at least free to post a "No Robots Allowed Sign" and have it respected.

Because I don't think we will much care for the outcomes when we have a world where Coca Cola and slip Meta half a a couple hundred million to make sure the next model generally chooses their products when someone asks the AI to ensure the fridge has colas in it. The consequences for the market where there are six or so middle men everywhere won't remain 'free' long.

At least the retail arm of Amazon is um a wait for it a retailing operation. The individual candy bars, and $2 for 20z chilled sodas are up by the checkout line where you are standing around waiting at the grocery for a reason.

At any large retailer (an some small ones) quite a lot of thought goes into what is on the end caps and what gets less prime real-estate. I actually don't think it is unreasonable Amazon should seek to control the shopping experience to a degree even if to the point of using so called 'dark patterns' to drive some impulse purchases or steer customers toward higher margin items in the category.

That is consumer selling and has been since probably some ancient farmer bartering with his neighbor suggested he'd take fewer animal skins if the other guy agreed to accept some of the squash that had already gone a bit soft over the fresher merchandise.

Does big tech, take that probably way to far - I think the answer is likely yes, but how far that is and how they should be restrained is really a different conversation.

The separate question is should Amazon have to let Meta (or anyone else) step in and completely separate Amazon's own customers from interacting with the store front Amazon wants to present to them? I think the answer to that really should be no.

The reason it should be no is not to protect Amazon but because as much influence as they have in the retail space (maybe to much) think how much influence a handful of frontier model AI providers might get in terms of determining product selection etc if shopping via AI bot becomes the nominal consumer expectation.

One man's "gate-keeping" was everyone else's curating. The old model printing and distribution was a very real cost, usually two large to be borne by an author and certainly by a new author. The primary sales channels also had a premium on space, you can only put some many books on shelves low enough for customers to browse, their are only so many end aisles privilege products with placement showing more than their spine, and the story with magazine racks wasn't much different.

So the publishes provided enormous value to retail by both ensuring quality control, and filtering for what the public wanted to buy or was worth convicing the public they wanted to by thru various literary reviews, direct advertising, etc.

Digital has removed the *need* (and many of the retailers with that).

The question is was and remains how much value was the curating, QA to the consumer. We were reading/listening to better content because of the filter and not wasting on time on drek, alternatively what price were we paying for the gate-keeping aspect in terms of not hearing voices and ideas that might have proven interesting. What is the cost of the fan out. When everyone was pulling from the selection on the shelf at the local Books-A-Million, Dalton, or library shelf, there was good chance of running into someone who'd read the same thing you did. Now - FAT chance if someone actually read something it was probably a substack, or some Kindle E-book by someone you never heard of.. As with water-cooler television even if what we are consuming is very good the opportunity to have any local discourse about or discourse within your own social circles whatever form they take is nil because you must first convince someone else to make the investment in it.

It certainly is having an effect on social discourse and how ideas advance and change in our society and I think very likely calcify because their is no collective train of thought. As to the topic at and AI is just going to pour gasoline on all of this, it will absolutely eat the proofing, editing, polishing value the traditional publisher can still add in the ebook era. The incentive for various retail channels to 'stock' the stuff of least providence will be huge, if an algorithm can see sell Christine Middle Schooler another book about sparkling vampires and her Dad another story about manning a first generation aircraft carrier in the Pacific, she likes those and so does he, and they can pick from ones with almost no royalty/residual attached, more profit for them. If AI can make those good enough to get them to come back for more; what need for a traditional publishing house is there, that would pay the bills anyway?

The AI industry has blown a spectacular bubble via circular dealing - Nvidia, OpenAI, Oracle, Microsoft, CoreWeave, etc are all doing monopoly money deals. Nvidia "sells" some GPUs, then "invests" the proceeds back into OpenAI, nothing got done, no money changed hands, but their stock values zoom. This looks exactly like the Dotcom bubble in the late 1990s and such things always implode - the market doesn't just correct, it panics, it liquidates, nobody can tell what's real, so everything is for sale at pennies on the dollar.

The industry's strategy to not go to prison for this stunt is to make AI equivalent to nuclear weapons. When the bubble begins to burst, the Trump administration will "make a deal", what you see is the beginning of that process. This will work about as well as the attempt to shake down Iran for their oil, but cause and effect are not the Trump administration's strong suit.

for once I am really rooting for the extinguish part of Microsoft's Embrace Extend Extinguish MO..

The language and the tech are fine but the proponents are mostly insufferable.

I'll bet; my first reaction to that would be "Today is not going to be a good day"

Here let me google for you

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2F...