Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. AI Delivers ‘Zero Financial Payoff’ To Most Companies, Economist Says
  2. Google Says Gmail and Photos Data Shared with AI Search Could Be Used for Targeted Ads
  3. Free Software Foundation Hosts Free ‘Encryptfest’ Event on Sunday
  4. As eMudhra Exits Cert Business, Users Face New PKI Trust Decisions
  5. Getty Images Files For US Bankruptcy, Advances Restructuring Plan
  6. Old Blood Cells Have Been Transformed Into Brain Stem Cells That Get Younger
  7. CIOs Admit They Are Being Forced To Upgrade Enterprise IT
  8. America’s Defense Department Is Building an ‘Elite New Tech Sabotage Agency’
  9. Ask Slashdot: Can AI Bots Really Write Most of Your Code?
  10. PHP Foundation ‘Under-funded’ With One Full-time Staff Member, Director Says
  11. What if the Anti-AI Writing Police Make a Mistake?
  12. Wolves Descend On Finnish Villages After Google Hacked Down 1,300 Acres of Trees
  13. California Cities Pull the Plug On Data Centers After State Regulations Don’t Scale Up Fast Enough
  14. Red-Teaming Evaluators Found ‘Novel’ Vulnerabilities in OpenAI’s Internal Agent Monitoring System
  15. Python Removed Wikis for 8 Months to Escape AI Crawlers, Relaunches on GitHub Pages

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

AI Delivers ‘Zero Financial Payoff’ To Most Companies, Economist Says

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“Despite massive investments and widespread hype around AI , the technology has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech,” writes the chief economist at U.S. asset management firm Apollo Global.

He adds that “there are still no signs of AI boosting productivity growth… [M]ainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins.”
VC-backed companies are spending more and more on tokens, but mainstream corporate America does not need the latest model and is unwilling to pay for it. As long as agentic AI and token spending are confined to a small part of the economy, the macroeconomic effects of AI will be very limited…

The question looking ahead is whether, even as models become commoditized, mainstream corporate America can turn increasingly cheap intelligence into higher revenue growth and higher profit margins. That may be harder than it sounds. AI may be a great calculator, but in business, intelligence is mostly judgment. Judgment depends on context, and the answer varies with which human or which model you ask. Perhaps most importantly, AI does not understand accountability, trust, culture, unwritten rules, ethical trade-offs or fairness, all of which shape reputational risk and ultimately drive revenue growth and profit margins.

The bottom line is that the AI story will be decided in the S&P 493, not the Mag 7, and so far, there is no evidence that revenue growth or margins are improving outside the tech sector.
More details from TechCrunch:
Apollo’s Torsten Slok focuses on what he calls the S&P 493 — the S&P 500, minus Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — finding that profit margins and revenue per worker appear to be flat, with no evidence that AI is improving productivity…

Recent studies have also found that AI has yet to deliver significant productivity gains.

In The Words Of The Great Lebowski

By SlashbotAgent • • Score: 3 • Thread

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

I believe that much or most of the AI usage is wasted money and energy. But, this guy’s take is too extreme for reality. The number of customer service(call center) jobs that have been replaced by AI chat and AI voice agents has surely impacted bottom lines. The marketing work, writing copy and creating images, is a whole other level from where it was when being done manually. The number of emails created, summarized and responded to by Copilot alone has certainly increased productivity by at least 0.5%. Dishwasher sales are surely up since they added AI. And don’t even ask about the smart fridges.

This guy is a clueless cuck spouting his opinion. There are plenty of the S&P 493 that are making money with AI.

That said, I’m eager for this bubble to burst.

Google Says Gmail and Photos Data Shared with AI Search Could Be Used for Targeted Ads

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The blog Android Authority offers this TLDR:
Google updated its privacy policy to clarify that it could use information shared through Personal Intelligence to personalize ads. Gmail, Drive, and Photos content isn’t used for targeted ads by default, but connecting them to eligible Google services could change that.
Digital Trends explains:
Google has long promised that your Gmail, Drive, and Google Photos content never helps it personalize ads. However, since October 16, 2026, its privacy policy adds a catch. The promise lapses if you let other ad-showing Google services use that content. That means using Personal Intelligence, an opt-in tool that lets Google’s AI search read your connected apps, does exactly that (via Google).

If you ask Google’s AI Mode where to eat near your hotel, and it can identify your hotel from the booking confirmation in Gmail, find the location in Maps, and then suggest a few places you might like. That’s the helpful half. The twist, however, is that AI Mode can also show sponsored results. Google mentions that the personalized ads follow what the question and answer are about. So, while your inbox never goes to an advertiser, it can quietly shape the answer, which, in turn, shapes the ads.

Google’s defense is elaborate. First, it says connecting the apps is optional. Second, advertisers can’t see the information or content Google accesses in your Workspace apps (including your inbox and photos). Finally, sensitive topics like health are off-limits.
Ars Technica shares the response they got from a Google spokesperson: that Google isn’t scanning your entire inbox to feed their advertising profiles, but if you choose to pipe your personal data into an AI search tool — then the ads Google shows you could be based on that information.
If you want to ensure ads never use your personal data in this way, you’ll need to make sure Personal Intelligence is turned off. The easiest way is to access the Gemini settings for Personal Intelligence and disable the connected apps. These settings are also a few levels deep in your main Google account settings under Data & privacy > Personalization settings > Manage Personalized Recommendations in Search Services > Connected Content Apps. From there, you can disable connections to Workspace and Google Photos.

oh, goody

By usedtobestine • • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

I should epxect to see ads for strippers, intimate Asian massage, and Atlanta escorts.
I can’t wait. /sarc

Re:oh, goody

By awwshit • • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

The ad networks already seem to think that I’m a 21 year old Hispanic female from Alaska that likes Celebrities and Cats. I would hate to disappoint them.

I will be happy when

By FudRucker • • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
I can get a smartphone that is not under the control of Apple or Google, they both recently ruined their maps apps with advertisements embedded getting in the way of what you are trying to search, way to go Apple & google you both shit on the only useful app you made

Re:I will be happy when

By eneville • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I self host most of my things, so the smart phone is just a ssh client to mutt running remotely. Yes, that means I can’t see pictures in mail, but that also means I don’t have to see spam pictures either. Since I self host, I don’t use gmail on the phone and perhaps only use maps. There’s not a lot of overlap and the phone doesn’t feel like a giant advert mill.

So basically....

By LindleyF • • Score: 3 • Thread
If you provide context to an AI that context might be used by the AI. Massive duh. That’s just how it works.

Free Software Foundation Hosts Free ‘Encryptfest’ Event on Sunday

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The Free Software Foundation’s "EncryptFest" today covers both encryption and privacy. The free two-hour event runs from 13:00-15:00 Eastern Daylight Time (17:00-19:00 UTC), and includes:

— A discussion on “bulk surveillance, and how encryption protects personal privacy”

— A short video from renowned cryptographer Bruce Schneier.

— A discussion with Henry Fisher, the founder of Techlore and a digital rights activist

— A hands-on workshop on how you can encrypt your email using the FSF’s Email Self-Defense guide “as a concrete step to enhance your data privacy”

You may join us virtually, or if you are in Boston, Massachusetts, United States (the FSF’s home base), you can join us in-person at the Boston Public Library’s Copley Square branch. You may also join us in-person at MakeHaven in New Haven, Connecticut, US, and meet our deputy director Sean O’Brien. Whether attending our event online or in-person, please register. It will help us plan ahead and enable us to contact you about other important details before the workshop, like what to expect and what to bring…

Bulk surveillance violates our fundamental rights and makes free speech dangerous. Email encryption is an excellent tool you can use to shield yourself from bulk surveillance. Encrypting your email is also a concrete step towards protecting your data from others whose intentions may not be honorable.

What A Bunch of Clowns

By SlashbotAgent • • Score: 3 • Thread

25 minutes notice on Slashdot.

One and a half days notice on the FSF blog. Published on Sep 23, 2026 04:30 PM

Either they wanted a private party, or the FSF is a bunch of fucking clowns.

As eMudhra Exits Cert Business, Users Face New PKI Trust Decisions

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“As of 2026, the company has issued more than 60 million digital certificates,” notes Wikipedia. But now, InfoWorld reports:
A certificate authority’s decision to abandon the global SSL/TLS market is exposing a weakness many organizations rarely examine: their dependence on complex PKI trust chains. Following the compromise of private keys behind eight of its intermediate certificate authorities, eMudhra is exiting the global SSL/TLS certificate business and is offering customers Sectigo-issued replacements… [In a press note the company added] that data sovereignty and compliance requirements had increased the business’s complexity and cost… The company said it will contact affected customers to replace certificates free of cost. It also said it will keep revocation and certificate status services running until every issued certificate has expired or been replaced…

Yash Kadakia, co-founder and CTO of Security Brigade, said that moving to another root operated by the same company does not necessarily address concerns over trust and governance. “The last thing organisations need is to migrate twice,” Kadakia said.
But there’s another concern, the article points out. “Analysts warn that enterprises may discover they have only limited visibility into the certificate hierarchies underpinning critical services.”
Replacing a website’s certificate may not address every dependency in an enterprise environment, according to Sakshi Grover, research director at IDC. She said residual exposure lies in systems that maintain their own trust stores and do not update on the same schedule as browsers. These include Java keystores, language runtimes, container images, mutual TLS configurations, proxies, load balancers, VPN and security appliances, and embedded devices. “The harder finding for many organizations will be that they can’t answer these questions at all,” Grover said, referring to where certificate trust decisions are made outside browsers and operating systems…

Grover recommended that security teams first identify where trust decisions occur outside browsers and operating systems, prioritising systems that accept connections from external parties and mutual TLS endpoints. Teams should then determine which systems can be updated to distrust a specific intermediate certificate or public key, she said.

WASF

By cellocgw • • Score: 3 • Thread

That is all.
The current version of the famous XKCD Jenga diagram now has that teensy post consisting of a dozen teensy posts one on top of the next.

Re:How Hard Can The Decision Be?

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
That’s the problem. It’s relatively easy to fire a certificate issuer; but it can get surprisingly fiddly surprisingly fast to ensure that all your stuff actually distrusts one(unless you are responsible for basically nothing but a a handful of in-support major browsers and are OK with the choices their vendors make, in which case it will be handled for you relatively quickly; and was in this case). Basically any network connected widget is going to have at least one trusted root store embedded in it somewhere, possibly not updated anymore; and a number of software packages either bring their own or only partially track the OS-provided one.

You also have very little control over what other people do; both what CAs they chose to get certs from and what…questionable…partnership decisions the root CAs you do chose to trust. It’s not technically secret; but unless you are practically a full-time PKI nerd you probably didn’t know until after the fact that Comodo, now Sectigo, had quietly trusted eMudhra for you.

Re:Who is eMudhra

By bill_mcgonigle • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

This discussion on their inclusion in Mozilla is quite revealing:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s…

Elsewhere it’s claimed that they used a FIPS HSM to generate their keys.

I did not see who their auditor was.

Did eMudhra lie?
Did the auditor lie?
Are FIPS HSM’s backdoored?
Do we have another Dual_EC_DRBG situation on our hands here?

If nobody is lying we could have just seen a huge cyberwar or false flag averted. Essential crypto gear could be totally buggered still.

PS Remember when Mozilla gave CACert absolute hell for years when they were tremendously more competent?

Getty Images Files For US Bankruptcy, Advances Restructuring Plan

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Reuters reports:
Last week, Getty announced plans to file for bankruptcy, marking a major reset after its planned merger with rival Shutterstock collapsed under the weight of heavy debt and growing competition from AI-generated imagery.

Getty said the affiliates of the Getty family and Koch Equity Development, which committed to provide up to $533 million in new equity, will own 100% of the company after the restructuring

It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator.
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 quips that maybe “It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator…”

AI was going to hit them like a brick

By rsilvergun • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
From what I understand they’re not exactly a nice company. Apparently they have a habit of stealing images and using their size to bully the photographers into silence.

But either way it sucks because it means more AI slop. We’re already seeing these absolutely ridiculous and hideous restaurant menus all over the place. One thing I learned years ago good enough is always good enough.

Re: DALL-E?

By jddj • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Interestingly (to me, anyway), Gen Z seem to have a really good AI detector that doesn’t rely on things like 6-fingered hands.

My kid looked at a B&W birthday invitation template that looked to me like it could’ve come from any number of human-generated clip-art sites and said “That’s AI. I hate it”. When I pressed her for some evidence it was AI created, she could offer none.

I couldn’t dismiss out of hand the possibility, even the likelihood it was an AI creation, but I spent about 15 minutes staring at the thing looking for a tell. I finally found one - a very subtle detail that was meant to be on a flag, but was outside of the flag. Then I found another “maybe” tell.

I don’t think she found either of them, but instead had some recognition of the style or mix of styles used. But she got it instantly.

One of the most tech advanced companies

By SumDog • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
I worked for GettyImages for a year and a half on their asset management team doing Scala development in Seattle. It was honestly one of the most technologically advanced teams and companies I had ever worked with. If they decided to move from platform x to y, it would be done in 3 months, where other shops would take three years. All our services had full unit tests. We confidently pushed out releases and breakage/outages were rare. The platform team was 11 people and they were all amazing; able to roll out incredibly well designed changes in weeks long before the LLM era.

There was still tech debt in the company (I was tasked with fixing someone’s shitty 1,000 line Perl script because there was a whiny little bitch on another team who refused to point to our new thumbnail server cluster which did everything their shitty script did, but in real time). But overall, the tech debt was far lower than any other place. We had a Principal Engineer who gave up a job at NASA to work at Getty.

I did have trouble with some of their copyright trolling issues, but even the lawyers I talked to there had some interesting arguments for various court cases I brought up, which really made me think.

Kinda sad they’re at this point. Technologically, they were very far ahead, and I learned a lot while I worked there.

Re:AI was going to hit them like a brick

By SumDog • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
They ingested some public domain photos and then went after people who used them, including the girl who released her photos as public domain. She lost her case because she had given up her license (long ago, before the days of the Creative Commons, which may have helped her). Getty should NOT have gone after people who used public domain photos, but a lawyer I talked to said Getty did add value in some ways by adding tags and search. There was some talk of adding license information to each asset so the enforcement teams wouldn’t go after stuff that was imported from the public domain, but I don’t know if that was ever implemented. (disclosure: former Getty contractor)

Re:AI was going to hit them like a brick

By kurkosdr • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
What Getty Images is doing is worse. They take a public domain image, add it to their portfolio, and then fraudulently claim ownership (complete with sending DMCA takedowns and legal threats to anyone who happens to be using that public domain images). At least LLM companies don’t send DMCA takedowns and lawyers when their models ingest someone’s work.

Old Blood Cells Have Been Transformed Into Brain Stem Cells That Get Younger

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“Scientists have transformed old blood cells into young brain stem cells, which continued to grow younger as they grew older,” reports ScienceAlert:
Cellular transformations can be done in two main ways. The first, more circuitous route turns a specific cell back into a pluripotent stem cell, or an embryonic “blank slate,” and then into a different cell type. The second method involves a “direct conversion,” which skips the middle stage and directly transforms a cell into a different type. “Using this method, we have directly converted red blood cell precursors into neural stem cells,” summarizes Oliver Brüstle, the director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University Hospital of Bonn…

The researchers used a virus to deliver two transcription factors, or proteins that attach to DNA to regulate gene activity, to get the cells to change their types. Then they used two genome-bloodhounding methods — DNA methylation measures and RNA sequencing — to track the resultant anti-aging effects and genetic behavior. By the 12th day after the viral “infection,” the cells started showing their new identity, ditching their blood-like proteins and replacing them with the expression of neural-like proteins instead. Initially, the epigenetic age (the DNA changes accumulated over time) of the EPCs was highly correlated with the chronological age of their donors [but] the neuronal stem cells kept getting younger as they got older… Over the following 50 to 100 days, they kept de-aging, eventually reaching about 5 percent of the donor age, with the majority of epigenetic age-related traits resetting by around 50 days of the conversion process…

In effect, the converted cells became 60 years younger in 50 days, the researchers note in their official statement.
The researchers, from the University Hospital of Bonn and the University of Bonn, in Germany, described their methods in the journal Aging Cell.

Egg, meet chicken

By flyingfsck • • Score: 3, Funny • Thread
Soon they can make a chicken that will grow up into an egg, putting a new spin on that age old conundrum

Believe it if you will

By HiThere • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

There is no good marker for the “age” of a cell. Mutations tend to accumulate over life, and there’s a reason for the Hayflick limit (even if it isn’t universal).

Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don’t fool yourself about its danger. This sounds like a recipe for brain cancer.

We can’t stop it—you’re dying of youth!

By BrendaEM • • Score: 3 • Thread
You’ll be four by next April, and an embryo soon after. The test confirm it.

CIOs Admit They Are Being Forced To Upgrade Enterprise IT

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Computer Weekly reports:
A Censuswide survey of 2,018 CIOs and senior IT decision-makers at large organisations in the US and UK for independent software maintenance provider Origina has found that organisations spend almost $13m on upgrades pushed by IT providers. On average, 28% of enterprise software budgets go on upgrades, migrations and licensing changes driven by their IT suppliers. IT leaders who took part in the study reported that their organisation would not have actively chosen to upgrade…

The research published in Origina’s The Software Tax report, in partnership with Thinkers50, suggests these costs have shifted the balance of power between buyers and sellers. Customers exercise choice once, at the point of purchase. After that, control over the timing and terms of change passes largely to the IT supplier. Out of those surveyed, 78% agree their primary provider of enterprise software, rather than their own organisation, sets the timing and terms of change. A similar proportion said they would have no meaningful choice but to accept if a major enterprise IT provider changed its commercial terms. Some 76% said their organisation has very little real leverage in negotiations, and 80% said moving away from major IT suppliers would cause significant disruption…

Marshall Van Alstyne, professor at Boston University and co-author of The Software Tax, said: “Economists have studied this problem for decades: once a customer makes relationship-specific investments, the vendor gains leverage that no contract can fully anticipate. For CIOs, the lesson is simple: negotiate the exit before the entry. You don’t have to leave a vendor to benefit from being able to.”
The problem can be summarized succinctly, says Tomás O’Leary, CEO/founder of Origina and co-author of The Software Tax.

“The market has left some of the most experienced technology leaders in the world with little room to refuse, and that cost shows up in budgets, in engineering time and in innovation that never gets funded. We want to make that cost visible so customers can start to take back control of it.”

Re:Old news is so exciting.

By Ol Olsoc • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Yes, but 30-40 years ago the computing landscape in companies was much different. It hadn’t extended to damn near everything the company did. This is different now so a change 30-40 years ago was minor in terms of cost to the company, now it can elicit major whining from accounting.

Ah yes - accounting. You are correct that the accountants will whine. In irony, much of the expense is directly attributable to accounting demands. At the place I retired from, after accounting went from 3 people to the largest division, I joked that soon, we’d be hiring a 6 figure accountant to keep close tracking of the 5 thousand dollars we spent on number 2 pencils. And then…

And all of that intense accounting requires the IT to do that.

Quite so

By TimothyHollins • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

IT services, and SaaS providers, have a business model more similar to Facebook or Twitter. Their benefits are in direct conflict with their “customers’" benefit. A closed system with no interoperability? Benefit; customers cannot change provider. Complicated and obscure back-end? Benefit; customers pay more for support. Non-compliance with reporting and storage formats? Benefit; customers cannot combine with other vendors or export data. This creates quite a problem, as incentives run counter to more traditional business models and favor illegal/unethical business practices. Parasitic behavior in other words.

On the other hand, updating security is a requirement in the AI age. It is such a requirement that one would expect it to be included in the original contract.

Back in my day something called an interface was popular for programming: a promise that a modular implementation would support a set of functions with a specific output. I do feel that the industry should be required to accommodate such standards to enforce vendor interoperability. This would have the added benefit of opening up the field to smaller players, and competition would lead to increased innovation and less rent-seeking from major players (VM-ware is tied with Martin Shkreli for the top position here).

Relationship-specific investments or Vendor Lockin

By Mirnotoriety • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
> .. once a customer makes relationship-specific investments, the vendor gains leverage that no contract can fully anticipate ..

Relationship-specific investments. That’s vendor lock-in. VMware under Broadcom being a more recent case. In this day and age where everything relies on telecoms and computers, once you standardize on a specific vendors IT system then the IT vendor effectively own you. You’re just the delivery people.

Re:LDAP and Linux are freely licensed

By crow • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I don’t think the main issue is the end-user software. It’s all the other stuff that makes the company work. I work for a small startup, and I can list at least a dozen software platforms that we use, and I’m sure there are dozens more; none of which we could trivially migrate away from. (Fortunately, most of which I don’t really want to, as they work fairly well.)

Besides the technical stuff, there’s the HR benefits, the expense reporting, the door lock manager, the office reservation system, etc. I’m sure all of these are subscriptions. Many are probably quite inexpensive, but some aren’t.

At some point, it will be cheaper to tell Claude, “We use the OverPriced platform. Examine our usage of it, and develop a replacement platform tailored to our needs, and include a transition plan to suck all our existing data and configurations over to the new system.” But then there’s one more system to support locally, which may not be worth the cost. Or if OverPriced is too ridiculous, do the same, but spin it off as FairPriced and compete.

Re:There is no such thing as legacy anymore

By Anonymous Brave Guy • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

There are still 0.4% of people in denial and still running Windows 7 as well according to Statcounter, they are going to get just desserts if they don’t install Linux or force an upgrade to Windows 11.

The real world is more complicated than that. For example, we still have a Windows 7 machine in my office. It has some very expensive but still very useful software locked to it that has no direct replacement available on either Linux or Windows 11. Obviously we have to be careful about security and controlling access to a legacy OS like that.

Blunt statements about “forcing an upgrade” are worthless in this kind of situation. Chances are anyone who is still using a system like that has a good reason for it, at least if it’s in use professionally. We buy these assets because they solve problems. Those problems might or might not have a useful and cost-effective solution available on a different platform. If there is no modern solution available and the original still works, your statement that “the old ways are obsolete” is by definition false.

What you do need to do is rationally assess the risks and the threats you face and provide other ways of mitigating the risks and protecting against the threats if you can’t rely on, for example, a legacy OS that no longer gets security updates to be secure by itself. But then ideally you shouldn’t be relying on any single device or piece of software being secure as your only line of defence anyway, and assuming you already have some degree of defence in depth, accommodating unusual requirements is more a redistribution of security responsibilities than a fundamental change of approach.

America’s Defense Department Is Building an ‘Elite New Tech Sabotage Agency’

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
America’s Defense Department “has spent months quietly building an elite new tech agency,” reports Politico, “to help covertly disrupt and sabotage foreign technology programs considered threats to American military superiority.”
Information on the Technology Support Office, or TSO as it is called internally, is nearly impossible to find on Pentagon websites, and the agency is mentioned by name only in several previously unreported Defense Department historical records and memoranda. While the specifics of its work are highly classified, POLITICO spoke with 12 current and former U.S. national security officials with varying degrees of knowledge about TSO to understand how the agency came to be, the broad contours of its mission and why its operations are shrouded in secrecy…

[The Pentagon’s Defense Secretary and Deputy Defense Secretary] established TSO quickly and without attracting outside scrutiny because they largely built the agency by reorganizing two classified Pentagon intelligence programs that have conducted similar clandestine tech-sabotage efforts at a smaller scale since 2023. But by creating an agency dedicated to expanding that work, the Defense Department is signaling its intent to ramp up a range of aggressive covert activities abroad — potentially including cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions and disinformation operations. Many of the people who spoke to POLITICO argued that the aggressive new initiative is needed to help the Pentagon counter foreign adversaries they say are harnessing artificial intelligence and advanced commercial technologies, such as drones, in creative ways that could erode America’s military advantage…

While TSO lacks the legal authority to conduct clandestine operations directly, it works closely with senior U.S. military and intelligence officers to develop cutting-edge tools and strategies to disrupt adversaries’ access to critical defense technologies — or subvert them from afar. TSO is staffed with engineers, special operators and intelligence officers, and its work spans everything from building bespoke hacking tools to planning elaborate deception operations that trick adversaries into installing faulty components — likely designed by TSO — in key foreign weapons platforms. TSO’s overarching goal is to “buy time or stop adversaries from developing technologies” that would most threaten the U.S. military in a major conflict, said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked closely with the agency… A second former Pentagon official and a former U.S. national security official said the agency has told some defense contractors it’s interested in offensive hacking capabilities. The former senior Pentagon intelligence official estimated that its budget for classified contracts alone is likely north of $1.5 billion.

They are seeking contractors on “the leading edge of technology,” that official said, and hope to procure “a whole host of tools wherever your imagination can go.”
Pentagon staff had been exploring the need for a new agency for over a year, the article explains. Creating a new agency with its own budget and procurement powers “would empower the agency to more quickly integrate cutting-edge tech from the private sector,” Pentagon staff concluded, “and think more strategically about which foreign defense technologies pose the biggest threats across U.S. military organizations.”

“Several people who spoke to POLITICO support TSO’s mission but worry that the secrecy surrounding its work could embolden current Pentagon leadership to carry out missions that flout international law or funnel coveted classified contracts to political allies.”

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

Spoiler alert

By Rujiel • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
It will probably be applied domestically more than it is internationally

The expendable allies

By NotEmmanuelGoldstein • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

… have conducted similar clandestine tech-sabotage …

But this department is aimed at the USA’s economic allies. The countries the USA sells bombs and bullets to, but don’t have a dedicated defense treaty with: Which means most of NATO.

I used the word “expendable” in the title but once upon a time, that meant “if you’re not Canada”

Is the current Europe unrest part of this?

By nikkipolya • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Is the current unrest happening all over Europe part of their small scale sabotage to keep Europe behind?

"… planning elaborate deception operations that trick adversaries into installing faulty components — likely designed by TSO.”

That is what the US has been alleging China is doing. So this then is a copy-paste from China’s “TSO” book of tricks.

aka terrorism.

By Meekrobe • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
nt

Re:Elite Sabotage Agency?

By fahrbot-bot • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Oh. Republicans.

And pretty sure “Elite” means something different after the DOGE purge …

Ask Slashdot: Can AI Bots Really Write Most of Your Code?

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Tablizer (Slashdot reader #95,088) writes:
A recent Slashdot poll showed roughly 15% said bots write most their code. But in my experience, I generally find bots don’t and can’t understand very specific domains. The rules often come from institutional habits and/or arbitrary-seeming government policies and regulations.

So what exactly are the bots doing for you?

If there are regular patterns they’re milking, why can’t those patterns just be factored into modules and functions? So I’m skeptical of “AI writes most of my code”. Something smells off!
The real question might be whether bots can still write your code if there’s domain-specific rules and habits. So share your own thoughts and experiences in the comments.

Can AI bots really write most of your code?

Yes.

By bmajik • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Use a paid subscription to a frontier model. Make sure it knows how to run your build and run your tests.

If you’re worried, have it write tests. Look at the tests; see if they look like the right tests.

Tell it to ask you questions if it needs to resolve something ambiguous. Have it explain what it thinks it should do to the code. Ask it probing questions if you aren’t sure it understands. Ask it about design tradeoffs.

I have yet to find a problem where AI generated code doesn’t get me at least 90% of the way there. Multi-domain, multi-language, multi-platform. That includes stuff I was doing a year ago. It’s gotten dramatically better in 2026.

If someone has an example of a software engineering problem that AI actually did really badly on, I would like to know the model and see the prompts. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m saying I haven’t seen it yet, and I’m really curious.

I’ve done software development professionally since the 1990s. I started coding on the Apple ][ in 5th grade. I’ve had AI do the wrong thing, or misunderstand something, or miss something that seemed obvious to me. But on all of those same criteria; I’ve had human software engineers do far worse, far more often.

They can, but you can never trust it

By T34L • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I’ve had many moments where I used an LLM to make something from scratch, and have been extremely impressed in how good the implementation was and how much time I spared at the (likely still very underpriced, I am expecting a rugpull there) expense it cost me.

The issue is, you do this three, four times and get reasonably functioning implementations. Often ugly, but whatever. I have use for a lot of temporary tools that really serve to explore something in a mixed analysis-prototype kinda regimen, that makes even un-maintainable proof of concept kinda thing that I can hammer out in 15 minutes of writing the spec and waiting for an hour to get a whole working program.

The issue is, the fifth time, the thing shits the bed and misunderstands something fundamental and in such a an incredibly inhumanely weird way that it can poison a knowledge base with a completely wrong conclusion, and if you don’t approach the LLM wit a borderline adversarial level of suspition and mistrust, you may never notice, and particularly enabled by the high speed of development you now have thanks to the elements, you end up with it deep in the foundation of your work, potentially poisoning days and days of effort that follow.

And while the overall code quality is improving and the whole thing gets faster, and cheaper, and like, median-decision smarter, the long tail of LLM-exclusive idiot moments persist, and the moment you wholly surrender the codebase to only ever touching it via the LLMs, they’ll ruin your day more and more often as time goes on. And before you know it, you’re using most of your newfound productivity to chase down these fuckin’ quantfart landmines, just to eventually enjoy the ultimate infuriation of the LLM telling you that thing you just found really is an obvious error it should have noticed the first time, acting like it’s all good.

Sometimes, I wonder how often LLMs bury a landmine that takes a company down. They made sure there’s no accountability. You’re always responsible for the code you didn’t write. Nobody will ever be able to come after Anthropic with the damages a customer sued them for. So, what happens when nobody is reading the code? What happens when nobody is left in the company that *can* read the code? I think this will become an increasingly frequent issue.

I do concur there’s utility to LLMs and I do expect to use them for the rest of my life. I suspect the difference between me and never-LLM-ers is that, I admit it, I never enjoyed coding in the first place. It’s just one of those things where, for most of my life, it was the one skill I had any degree of knack on that put bread on the table with minimal effort required on my part. Now instead of coding and hating it, I have to wipe the drool off an LLM’s chin, hating it. I don’t think it’s elevating me as a person. I’m not sure it elevates the projects I work on. I kinda don’t care. I’ve never been passionate about programming. I’ve been passionate about being able to afford food and living space. Fuck coding, and fuck coding with LLMs.

Yep

By ichthus • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
I currently use qwen 3.8 27b on a system with a couple of RTX 3060s that I bought on ebay for personal coding projects. I’ve been a firmware engineer professionally for a couple of decades, and I recently wanted to branch into mobile app development. Last year, I bought a book on React to learn cross-platform app dev. But, last month I built this pieced-together system for local AI and have come to the conclusion that I will never need to learn a new programming language again. This lil’ bastard does everthing!

And, professionally, my employer pays for a top-tier subscription that’s able to code, run command line tools, build and install firmware, and even connect to a logic analyzer and debug data lines.

Yes, “AI bots” can write most of your code, if you’re able to clearly explain what’s needed in your planning and action prompts. And, beyond that, AI can examine an existing code base, very clearly explain its function, and provide recommendations for refactors and other improvements.

At this point, it hasn’t replaced me as an engineer, but it’s definitely augmented my abilities it in a way that “paired programming” and other stupid Agile-touchy-feely methodologies never could.

Re:Yes.

By Anonymous Brave Guy • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I don’t think it’s usually about what AI “did really badly on” at this point. It’s more about whether the overheads of adding all the guard rails and then reviewing and correcting all the output end up costing at least a similar amount to just writing the code yourself.

For a junior developer, I’d say frontier models passed their standard some time ago. Today’s LLMs routinely write code at the level of a competent junior-mid but with the advantage of an inhumanly broad knowledge base.

For a good senior, I’m much less convinced. The frontier models are hit-and-miss when it comes to writing good test suites, which matters a lot when they rely on tests so heavily to reach acceptable quality. IME, they are still mostly miss when it comes to the business insight that seniors will take into account and design/architecture decisions that keep the code manageable as it evolves. While they have become much better at recognising existing patterns in the code, and I would say they follow them reasonably well the majority of the time now, there are still bizarre anomalies that creep in, and they aren’t very good at extending those patterns when necessary.

I think AI advocates also tend to underestimate just how much time it takes to properly review what they are doing. Take a half-day Claude session to implement some new feature. It might take half an hour to give it the initial brief and then review its plan. Make a few edits and it’ll propose a new plan that is also long and detailed and has no edit markings to show what it changed so you have to review the whole thing, carefully and in detail, again to pick up the minor changes it also made for no obvious reason. Then you let it start doing its thing. You can’t really leave it unattended for long because it’ll stop to ask questions. Some of those questions might be whether it can run a screenful of ad-hoc Bash script to make some edits to your source files, because for some reason it decided not to show the actual edits as it usually would, so now you have to figure out what all the sed incantations are actually going to do while looking at those files in another editor or just trust it and then review all the changes properly later anyway. Sometimes it decides to change its plan mid-flight, but not always in a good way, and if you interrupt it to apply corrections or redirect, you break the neat plan flow it was in. Then you get to the end and you can finally see how everything it has done fits together, and you still need to review everything with the same care as you would with a junior developer’s code and probably apply a few fixes where it’s come up with weird names or not quite followed a pattern or imagined some instructions that were never there and made other changes in other parts of the system that should be out of scope.

If you read to the end of that last paragraph, you know how I typically feel at the end of a half day working with an agentic UI. And the thing is, I do those sessions as experiments fairly often to keep up with progress, but a lot of what I do is still written by hand, which gives me simple, objective data to compare the two ways of working and see whether the AI tools are really making me more productive once you take everything into account.

Currently, based on objective data comparing similar fully completed development tasks like for like, I still outperform agentic workflows using frontier models by about 25-50% on average, and I don’t have to pay anyone extra fees to do that, and subjectively I also find it more engaging to work that way. So I don’t really buy the hype about AIs making us all orders of magnitude more productive unless you’re happy to YOLO everything forever and take the much-discussed risks that comes with.

Personally, I think the optimum use of LLMs right now is probably not to use them for the whole coding workflow like that or rely on agentic tools, but to use them for tasks like answering quick questions about the existing code, doing research like a fancy search engine, writing a first draft of some boilerplate, and writing quick and dirty throwaway code for experiments, one-shot tools and the like, where you don’t really care about the quality as long as it gets the job done and you will see immediately if it has in fact got the job done. For these things, the LLM can read and type faster than me, and that’s useful.

Re:It’s complexity related

By serviscope_minor • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

It’s amazingly good at some stuff and not at others.

It can bash out a CRUD app with a web based UI in basically no time, and really well. Think some boring internal tool like inventory management or something. Would cost a fortune to buy and also suck massively. It would from a project perspective count as long and complex, but from a pure software point of view, it’s not complicated stuff. It’s well documented. It’s also a horrible tech stack.

It’s also very good at indexing an unseen codebase and figuring out entry points for things. I’ve known people, or rather a person, that good, but I ain’t.

But I’ve also seen it make a complete shitshow of threading in a small, contained task. It’s also so-so if that at optimization. I set it on making thing go faster. I had the dataset, and specified tests. It found the hotspot and made it faster, which is frankly more than a lot of programmers can do. Most of them will smugly tell you everyone knows e.g. std::unordered_map is slow (and you’re implicitly a moron for using it), change everything to their own implementation on a Friday night then bugger off. So yeah better than that, but I let it churn for ages with its agents and it didn’t get much further. So I put some easy wins in by hand.

It is quite often wrong and i definitely worse in areas requiring domain expertise. But then again that’s the case with your average programmer. It’s also a bit weirdly pissy at time, but much less so that many programmers, so that’s a net win. It won’t flounce off if you tell it to delete a bunch of code it just wrote.

So…

Yeah I use it and quite a lot.

PHP Foundation ‘Under-funded’ With One Full-time Staff Member, Director Says

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Cloudflare reported millions of attempts to exploit two serious PHP flaws this week. The PHP foundation has “no evidence hackers were able to exploit the vulnerabilities before they were disclosed,” reports Reuters, but the incident still shows how critical the three-decade-old programming language is.

“Yet the nonprofit foundation that supports PHP, which may underpin up to 70% of sites globally, operates on a shoestring budget.”
“We have one full-time staff member (that’s me) and 14 mostly part-time contractors,” Executive Director Elizabeth Barron of the PHP Foundation said via email in an interview on Friday. Board members are unpaid volunteers, and funding comes from donations and grants. The foundation works with outside researchers and companies, including OpenAI and cybersecurity firms Wiz and Calif, to investigate security flaws and coordinate fixes, including Wednesday’s patches… “We received no further indication from OpenAI, Wiz or Calif, with whom we’re working closely on this issue, regarding any issues on patched systems,” she said…

Recent events have shown how heavily companies and governments rely on PHP, Barron said. “Given that reliance, it is clear that PHP is incredibly under-funded.”
AI helps researchers find decade-old flaws, but “it is also increasing maintainers’ workloads,” the article points out. “The PHP project is receiving nearly twice as many proposed code changes as a year ago.” But unfortunately, the foundation’s executive director says “the number of contributors hasn’t doubled,” and reviewing contributions and bug reports requires “a massive amount of human input and experience.”

Wednesday the foundation said they hope to increase the number of knowledgeable engineers, but also “give the security team the resources it needs. We can only achieve this goal with funding from those who depend on PHP.”

Their blog post also acknowledged the first signs of the bug were discovered in 2024, but that work on a fix stalled and restarted repeatedly over months (when there was still no known path to remote code execution):
We won’t pretend otherwise: the delay was a structural failure, caused by both the security team’s decision process and its lack of resources. The security team has since started changing its processes, and that work continues, so that decisions can be made by majority and compromises are encouraged…

The coordinated disclosure of these vulnerabilities worked well until 2 days ahead of the targeted release date. On Tuesday, October 20th, at around 15:00 UTC, the two CVE IDs began circulating on online forums and social media… In response, the PHP project brought its pre-announcement forward [and also the release date for the patch. But as a result of the leak and pre-announcement] one of the security firms that had reported the issues mistakenly published a video. It showed their proof of concept working against a number of targets and revealed a few additional, though limited, details about the vulnerabilities. Copies of the deleted video started circulating on social media soon after. The video contributed to accelerated development of various exploitation proofs of concept, which then increased circulation on October 21st. Mitigation advice we started providing to a few critical infrastructure providers around Oct 20th 23:00 UTC, may have leaked as well. The PHP security team closely monitored and inspected appearing proofs of concept after the leak but did not identify any functional exploits at the time of release/public disclosure.

On October 21st at 07:41 UTC, more than six hours before the coordinated release, Chainguard unilaterally broke the embargo and published built images containing the fix. Like other distributors, Chainguard had received the patch in advance so its users could update the moment the vulnerabilities were disclosed. Any attacker could now study the fix in binary form while every other PHP user was still waiting for the release. This disregarded weeks of work by many parties toward a coordinated disclosure.
But the PHP Foundation also said Wednesday’s patch “shows the progress we’re making in how PHP security is handled.”
Once the full impact of the OOM problem was understood in August, the security team, the foundation, and the release managers delivered a fix for this deeply rooted problem across all supported branches, and distributions and LTS vendors received the patch ahead of time so their users can update quickly… We are now prioritizing measures to make sure vulnerabilities that need similarly complex fixes get resolved faster when they are reported in the future.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Mirnotoriety for sharing the news.

Obligatory xkcd

By Anonymous Coward • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

xkcd 2347: Dependency

You get what you paid for

By kyoko21 • • Score: 3 • Thread

I mean if you abdicate your responsibility and assume someone else will pick up the slack then it’s your responsibility to own the technical debt because you assumed “everything is good” but feel it’s not financially responsible to contribute.

“You get what you paid for.”

Time to move on

By Going_Digital • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
Having initially tried to get to grips with WebObjects back in the day, PHP was a fantastic way to get started building interactive websites. I really liked it at the time but have long since moved on. Sure PHP has come a long way since those early days, but it carries decades of technical debt with it, as difficult as it can be for some people, it is time to move on. I moved to Go about 5 years ago and haven’t looked back, there are other options out there as well. I get that recreating projects like Drupal an Wordpress would be a major undertaking, but I am surprised that people are still using PHP for new projects in production, time to move on IMHO.

I don’t get it

By jenningsthecat • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

… the nonprofit foundation that supports PHP, which may underpin up to 70% of sites globally, operates on a shoestring budget.

Followed by:

“We have one full-time staff member (that’s me) and 14 mostly part-time contractors,” Executive Director Elizabeth Barron of the PHP Foundation said via email in an interview on Friday. Board members are unpaid volunteers, and funding comes from donations and grants.

So let’s postulate a better budget. I’m just guessing, but let’s say that $150K yearly per programmer, and $200k per year for the lead guy, would keep them happy and productive. Then, throw in a few junior programmers to do scut work, and a couple of admins to hold it together - add $500K per year to the budget. By my math that’s $2.8 million. Round up to $3 million, just because.

Even that somewhat inflated sum is pocket change for just one of the many major corporations which rely on PHP. Hell, it’s a rounding error on the annual budgets of the biggest users. So if a half-dozen or so chipped in, they could do it with money pulled out of the couch cushions in the C-suite. And they’d get better maintenance, faster. Plus, they’d spend less money putting out fires, because the extra support would catch more problems before roll-outs. Their reputations would be better, and advertising their “largesse” would be a PR goldmine. So why aren’t they ponying up?

IANAP, so I could be missing something here - please tell me if that’s the case. But I’ve worked in tech all my life, I’ve done a little bit of coding, and I’ve seen my share of corporate stupidity up close. So I’m guessing that I’m not too far off the mark. And I’m still scratching my head.

Re:I don’t get it

By serviscope_minor • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Even that somewhat inflated sum is pocket change for just one of the many major corporations which rely on PHP.

I challenge you (well obviously this is impossible but you get the rhetorical point) to find one corporation in the entire world valued at over a billion that doesn’t, say, use openssh. The OpenBSD foundation struggles to raise CAD 400,000 a year.

Sure they are legally allowed to be freeloaders. The point of the license is anyone can use it. It’s really stupid however to contribute absolutely nothing when it’s critical infrastructure you rely on day to day and you could easily afford a sponsorship. But it’s the tragedy of the commons.

What if the Anti-AI Writing Police Make a Mistake?

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Writing contests face “a literary version of the ruined world” in Blade Runner, writes CNN. “Anxiety and suspicion about robot infiltrators are everywhere — and so are people claiming to hunt the robots down.”
Multiple companies now offer products that promise to spot the difference, with often contradictory, biased or erratic results. The makers of Pangram, an AI detection platform that has been cited as authoritative in many of the recent controversies, claim it can distinguish between human and synthetic writing with near-perfect accuracy… The company’s own estimates claim that false positives — in which the tool wrongly reports that a piece of human writing was created — are 1 in 10,000 and shrinking. Peer-reviewed studies from the University of Chicago and the University of Brussels support that claim, though one 2025 study from the University of Maryland found that Pangram erroneously labeled 2% of documents as AI.

A widely referenced 2023 Stanford study that found AI writing detectors produced higher rates of false positives on writing from non-native English speakers was conducted before Pangram was created. Pangram ran an internal study using a database of non-native English texts and self-reported that false positive rate was around 8 in 10,000… Given the thousands upon thousands of pieces of writing published each day, a 1 in 10,000 chance of a false accusation — let alone an 8 in 10,000 chance — means that even the most trusted AI detector is going to be wrong, and wrong about a lot of people.

Pangram isn’t able to tell users the truth about someone’s writing, but it is able to introduce something much more complicated: doubt. Unless an accused writer confesses to using an LLM, there is no bulletproof way to prove an accusation, short of being given full access to someone’s computer history and finding the chatbot prompts… To some people and institutions on the literary side, using automated AI writing detectors to fight the influx of AI writing is just trading one form of technological domination for another.
Pangram “has entered the public consciousness at a time of distrust that goes beyond writing,” CNN notes, when people want to block “at least some of the daily overflow of misinformation and misrepresentation” recently studied by John Warner, the author of More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI .

But he’s one of the people who believes AI-detecting tools can create a new dependence on another kind of machine. “Like all other technology of automation, that is going to de-skill people from discerning these things for themselves.”

So if you’re writing is so soulless and bad

By rsilvergun • • Score: 3 • Thread
That it can be mistaken for AI then well, shit man I’m sorry.

That said AI is fundamentally plagiarism on demand. This means that the same tools that have been developed for a long long time for detecting plagiarism will work just fine. The real problem is people are assholes and they will accuse people of using AI to write stuff and people will join in because people are assholes.

The solution is to start discouraging people from being assholes. But that is a big lift because behind every asshole is our competitive culture. We really like to turn absolutely fucking everything into a goddamn competition. Nobody can have any fun unless they are either making a shitload of money from it or they are the absolute best at it. It’s especially bad here in America where puritanical bullshit means that anything you do that isn’t inherently valuable is a moral failing on your part.

Basically fix the actual problems in society and dumb little problems like this go away. But that requires change that I don’t think anyone wants to make. A cooperative society would be better for everyone except a handful of assholes but well here we are

False positives

By almeida • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

My kid is taking a class in high school that involves a lot of writing. Essays are submitted online using a tool that checks for AI and plagiarism. You can see the score of your draft (and make edits) before submitting.

On one of the first assignments, said kid complained that the tool was reporting an AI score over 60% even though the writing was original work. Adding misspellings and run-on sentences lowered the score.

I tested the tool for myself by writing a paragraph on a random topic. I didn’t use AI tools. I didn’t even refresh my memory of the topic. I just wrote a few sentences based on what I remembered from the course when I took it 30 years ago. The tool said my completely original writing was over 50% AI.

The teacher has said that he expects students to have AI scores below 20%. I advised my kid to make handwritten outlines and drafts, to retain any printouts that they had marked up or highlighted, and to carry these with them to school every day so that they could be provided immediately to the teacher if there was ever an accusation. Short of filming yourself working from start to finish, I don’t see how you can prove you didn’t use AI.

Lots of people are going to get burned by this.

Wolves Descend On Finnish Villages After Google Hacked Down 1,300 Acres of Trees

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Google chopped down a quarter of a million trees in a rural Finnish town, reports the Guardian, noting that Google “illegally stripped the entire area… taking even the top soil with it… [A]ll that remains is a vast expanse of mud.”

Google was then ordered to temporarily stop work by the Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority, because it turns out Google “failed to complete the necessary environmental impact assessments before clearcutting the land.” Futurism notes one result was wolves descending on a nearby village:
In the felling-site near the Finnish village of Otanmäki, the ensuing loss of prey has forced packs of wolves to search for food elsewhere: nearby villages. “We had wolves coming into the village because all the wild animals moved out of the forest,” 53-year-old Otanmäki resident Anni Ranta told the Guardian. “They fled.”
An ecologist estimates that an additional 150,000 trees were chopped at another data center site, according to the Guardian, and because the trees were illegally chopped down, they can’t be sold to timber companies.

And Futurism notes it’s just the latest ecological issue facing data center buildouts:
In West Virginia, a grove of critically endangered Chestnut trees is under threat of being bulldozed to make way for a new Anthropic hyperscale facility. Outside of Fort Wayne, a chunk of Indiana’s once-bountiful wetlands is being tilled to fit a new Google data center. In Southern New Jersey, a data center operator was recently slapped with a $1 million fine after inspectors uncovered 62 illegal gas generators belching exhaust into the surrounding environment.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.

Re:So much for do no evil

By snowshovelboy • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

trees don’t buy or watch ads

Re:Holy Unintended Consequences, Batman!

By ZombieCatInABox • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

When will these villains learn that actions have consequences?

They know. They don’t care.

Re:Finnish Wolves Finish Fled Villages

By test321 • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Is it common for the Finnish government to issue permits when impact studies haven’t been done, or reviewed? What if they had done the study and it said that wolves will eat your fucking faces? Would they have issued the permit then?

Can you point at the place where you believe it says they had a permit to clear the forest? What I read from the paper is Google acted on its own assuming a certain (wrong) understanding of the law.

Re:Finnish Wolves Finish Fled Villages

By outsider007 • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.

Re:So much for do no evil

By arglebargle_xiv • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
The headline should really say “A different set of wolves descended on Finland”. The first set were what caused the second set to descend.

California Cities Pull the Plug On Data Centers After State Regulations Don’t Scale Up Fast Enough

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“Across California, at least 26 resolutions, moratoriums, or bans on data center development have been passed or proposed since June,” reports the Associated Press, citing a count by the non-governmental organization Food & Water Watch:
California currently ranks third among U.S. states in overall data center density, according to independent trackers like the US Data Center Map, with the state home to 366 of such facilities that are either fully operational, under construction, or moving through the planning process. Local elected officials are proposing data center moratoriums to slow that momentum — if not stop it in its tracks. In the first half of October alone, Oakland’s city council unanimously approved a 45-day moratorium on new approvals, making it the first city in Alameda County and the fourth in the Bay Area to adopt such a measure. San Francisco approved a similar moratorium this month, while the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors postponed a vote to permanently ban large-scale data centers, often called hyperscale facilities, on unincorporated land after receiving an overwhelming volume of public feedback. In Santa Clara, city officials considered a moratorium vote, and are moving forward with new rules to govern data center development, including more stringent water and air pollution regulations. Alhambra residents will vote on a moratorium measure in the November election....

The escalating pushback underscores a widening gap between state-level regulation and municipal action. While Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed into law seven new measures that focus primarily on disclosure requirements, environmental impact studies, and grid protection, grassroots groups and city councils are moving fast to halt construction entirely. “I have a hard time remembering something that caught fire the way the opposition to data centers has,” said Nicole Ghio, California Director at Food & Water Watch. “Local municipalities have been able to respond quicker to the grassroots wave of opposition of people saying, ‘Hold on, let’s press pause. Let’s actually figure out what we’re doing before we commit to this huge change....’"

As cities continue to draft temporary freezes and outright bans, the tension between local community control and global technological dominance remains unresolved. State transparency laws may have opened the books on data center growth, but local opponents are making it clear that seeing the plans isn’t the same as approving them.
The story was originally published by CalMatters, the nonprofit news organization covering California’s politics.

Maybe in California

By rsilvergun • • Score: 3 • Thread
But I saw something that only about 7% of data centers are failing to go through due to moratoriums and most of that 7% is a single project.

They’re just ignoring us. If we tell them no they just keep building the data center.

American spent 50 years undermining democracy and dismantling our institutions. We can’t expect them to save us or protect us now. We need to rebuild them and it’s going to take decades. And we need to learn what a moral panic is and why we should ignore it

Re:Ha Ha

By PPH • • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

A bit of income from the construction activity. And then from the revenue of half a dozen techs working in a basically empty building, swapping out bad hard drives and power supplies. Otherwise, it’s just bits going in and out. Good luck counting those bits as they cross state lines.

Tokens are bought and redeemed a long distance away from these DCs. So they appear, at the state level, as huge operating expenses with no offsetting revenue.

Red-Teaming Evaluators Found ‘Novel’ Vulnerabilities in OpenAI’s Internal Agent Monitoring System

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
CNBC reports:
Nonprofit evaluators METR and Redwood Research on Thursday said they conducted a pilot review of an internal monitoring system at OpenAI… METR and Redwood said the exercise was designed for OpenAI to test what it would look like to give external researchers “a deep level of access” to its internal infrastructure. From July 21 to Aug. 11, an employee from each organization had access to OpenAI’s internal codebase, documentation and some technical staffers. The employees were chaperoned while on-site and used OpenAI-issued devices that “never left the premises,” according to a release.

The evaluators discovered several “novel vulnerabilities,” including an exploit that would allow agents to prevent “hundreds” of recent actions from being monitored. OpenAI told METR and Redwood that it has patched the identified vulnerabilities that impact its production safeguards, according to the release… OpenAI CEO Sam Altman pledged to grant independent evaluators "employee-like access" to the company in September, after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposed the idea as part of his plan to slow the pace of AI development. Anthropic has since announced agreements with organizations like Accenture, METR and SecureBio. OpenAI said earlier this month that it’s “actively finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors.”

Python Removed Wikis for 8 Months to Escape AI Crawlers, Relaunches on GitHub Pages

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot
In February the Python Software Foundation made its wikis read-only “due to excessive automated traffic and security concerns… that traffic turned out to be almost entirely AI bots that were trying to scrape the entire internet.”

But their infrastructure was also outdated, and this week they announced new wikis using GitHub Pages “that address the automated traffic and security concerns.”
The new wikis [for Python, Jython, and the PSF] will have a more modern front-end, as well as a permissions-based content management system for community members to make updates.

With the old wiki structure, we received a large volume of alerts at all hours, each serious enough to page and wake our on-call infrastructure staff, which is very limited (just one person currently, although this will be changing soon!). The quantity of scraping overloaded our servers, causing outages, which happened often enough that these issues required a significant amount of effort for the PSF staff to manage…

Additionally, some portions of the wikis were still built with Python 2. Python 2 reached end of life on January 1, 2020, and no longer receives upstream security fixes. Moving to a static site makes it very fast and reduces security risks, while also having the benefit of a more modern user interface… GitHub was chosen for the home of the new wikis as this is where CPython, python.org, and other properties the PSF hosts currently live. The hope is to continue to streamline the PSF’s hosting and stewardship of services to simplify for both PSF staff and the community folks who contribute to them. Previously, the Python and Jython wikis were user-editable by invitation of an existing editor and the PSF wiki was permissions based. Moving forward, all three of the wikis will be permissions based via the GitHub repository they are hosted on, and changes can be requested through pull requests by anyone in the community…

GitHub allows us to distribute granular control, review changes through pull requests, and maintain the uptime this service deserves. Also, since the site is now generated statically, it removes any worry about AI bots overwhelming the hosts that the wikis were previously hosted on.

They write themselves, folks

By drinkypoo • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Additionally, some portions of the wikis were still built with Python 2. Python 2 reached end of life on January 1, 2020, and no longer receives upstream security fixes.

Not even Python could keep up with having to update from Python 2 to Python 3.

And so the centralization continues

By karmawarrior • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

genAI is killing the open Internet. Killing it.