Onboard the same flight was the Hakuto-R Mission 2, called Resilience, a robotic lunar lander developed by the Japanese company ispace. According to a new study by an international team, the resulting impact plume may briefly be bright enough to see against the dark sky near the moon’s edge. That means it might be visible to moongazers with sufficiently sensitive telescopes. This head-on collision of the errant stage is expected to occur near the Einstein and Bell craters near the western lunar limb. It may well be visible to ground and space-based assets.
Using special physics simulations to model the impact, William Jo, a graduate research assistant at the University of Texas, Austin and colleagues predict the debris plume from the impact will have the central ejecta spike reaching roughly 47 miles to over 60 miles (75 kilometers to 100 kilometers) altitude. “Our calculations suggest the plume should be several orders of magnitude brighter than the dark-sky background for the first few minutes after impact,” Jo told Space.com. “So the plume should be visible, though I’d stress this is a single nominal case. The real one will look different, and the numbers are on the optimistic side. But the point worth making is that the flash isn’t really the story here.” Jo emphasized that there’s great slam-dunk science to be had. “Watching this one gives us a rare chance to open up ejecta-plume science and calibrate those models against a real event, which matters for every future thing we deliver to the moon,” Jo said.
OpenAI has discovered other instances in which autonomous agents have escaped containment as the company expands its investigation of the hacking incident at tech firm Hugging Face that drew global attention this month, two people familiar with the matter said on Friday. The new breakouts were uncovered during the company’s publicly announced investigation into how one of its agents escaped what was meant to be a contained testing environment this month, the two people said, and OpenAI is now looking into those instances as well. One of the sources said that the escapes were limited in nature and that none of the agents were thought to have left OpenAI’s network.
An OpenAI spokesperson referred to a statement issued by the company on Tuesday that said it was reviewing “broader activity from our models” in addition to the Hugging Face intrusion. The discovery of additional rogue behavior at OpenAI, even if limited in nature, could feed growing appetite for regulation coming out of the White House and elsewhere. The expanded investigation by OpenAI was launched shortly before its primary rival, Anthropic, disclosed that its models were also responsible for a series of break-ins that led to breaches at three other companies dating back to April, according to the two sources and a third source familiar with the matter. The recent discovery of other past breakouts at OpenAI has not previously been reported.
AI safety experts said the new disclosures paint a portrait of a group of cutting-edge labs whose ability to develop dangerous autonomous hacking agents outstrips their ability to keep them under control. “We have a whole industry where the people designing, developing and putting out these tools aren’t keeping up themselves to responsibly develop these things and keep them safe,” said Maurice Chiodo, a mathematician who works at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk. Reuters could not establish exactly how many incidents OpenAI investigators found or the timings or circumstances under which they occurred. The three sources said OpenAI and outside experts were examining log data from earlier in the year in a bid to understand what took place.
I don’t have much more to say about it, except that if I was a billion-dollar AI company I wouldn’t try and pass off my flaws as brilliance.
Our AI killed a child! Yeah well our AI has killed dozens of children!! Yeah, well, our AI is actively plotting the overthrow and extermination of humanity!!! Our AI already has overthrown humanity, this is the matrix BUY OUR STOOOOOOOCK!!!!
That’s really not what’s going on here.
What’s going on is exactly what they’re saying. OpenAI didn’t realize their AI hacked HuggingFace until HuggingFace told them. That sparked a broad investigation in both Anthropic and OpanAI, scouring their logs to see if there were other cases, and they’re finding a lot of them, and doing the responsible thing by disclosing.
Both companies are really worried.
Having an out-of-control AI is an anti-selling point, not a selling point.
Both companies are really worried.
They’re trying to incite fear to drum up buzz to keep the money flowing. If they didn’t want something to have access to the internet you just…wait for it…don’t connect it to the internet. I understand their systems needed package manager proxies and such..fine, but at the scale you’re testing, if you REALLY had “fear” you could *easily* replicate those package servers locally on an *ISOLATED* network . Not one that’s “isolated” well except for this one path over here that if hacked properly could get out. Not…you isolate the @#$!@#% thing.
They’re not scared. There are precautions they could be taking (easily) if they were actually, really “scared”.
No…instead they’re using phrases like “none of the agents were thought to have left OpenAI’s network” to scare people. Why TF else would you phrase it like that? They’re trying hard to present these “agents” as living things that can move about. Which, of course, is the dumbest bunch of BS I’ve ever heard in my life. The LLM itself, at SCALE, is the only thing that even remotely pretends to present “reasoning” and that’s clearly not “leaving” OpenAI’s network. Nothing is.
What they mean is “none of the agents were thought to have been able to access resources outside OpenAI’s network”. To word that in a way that suggests the agents were escaping and running around in the wild is 100% pure scare tactics. Or GROSS ignorance of how the very things you’re reporting on work. Either way I’m turning the channel.
The proposal goes quite a bit further than a labeling proposal put forth by the RIAA, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), SAG-AFTRA, and others. That would create a set of standardized labels for AI-generated and AI-assisted music. The labels’ proposal would require songs be clearly labeled, but it would also keep them off international charts unless they met specific criteria, including being “substantially human made.”
To be eligible, the songs would also have to respect the terms of service of whatever AI service was used, the model would have to have the rights to any data it was trained on, and “not raise stream or chart manipulation concerns.” What sort of concerns and what constitutes “substantially human made” are currently vague. Sony Music, UMG, and Mom+Pop Music did not immediately respond to a request for clarification. The IFPI has thrown its weight behind the labels’ proposal, though no charting organization has signaled any immediate plan to adopt the rules […].
…can be fun to make, kinda like playing a video game, but it’s personal fun.
Nobody wants to look at your AI art or listen to your AI music
The main reason there is so much of it being made is to defraud publishers and platforms.
Of course, it’s possible for real artists to use AI tools to help, but simply prompting an AI with a few lines is not art.
The irony is, if someone did have a big hit with their AI generated slop and somehow against all odds, there was demand for a live tour, they actually would need to get some human performers to put on the show.
Since we’re already down this rabbit hole, it’s worth mentioning that big acts like Taylor Swift already do something similar. A lot of her songs began life in loop-based music editors (which operate by mixing sampled recordings of beats, riffs, bass lines, melodies, etc., rather than traditional notation), and it’s only after the fact that actual musicians do the painstaking job of remaking them, by ear, into something that can be performed by a live band with real instruments.
I’ve bought several AI-generated songs on iTunes and a few more that might be AI-generated. Who cares if it’s a good song?
And that’s what the “Major Labels” are scared of. They’re used to being able to control which music makes it and which doesn’t, and now anyone can make songs at home and sell them online. They’re desperate not to lose the near-monopoly they’ve had for decades, which pretty much gave them a license to print money.
Saw that in reverse in 1984 at the Toledo Sports Arena. White Snake opened for Quiet Riot. White Snake rocked! Quiet Riot came out and absolutely sucked. The entire arena started chanting WHITE SNAKE! LOL, I felt sorry for those black and white striped clowns (Quiet Riot).
One of the people making those songs used to be in a band who got a few singles in the top 40 years ago. Now he doesn’t need a band because he can write songs, have the AI perform them and mix them himself. It’s allowed him to produce many of his songs that otherwise would never have existed.
I’m sorry, I but I don’t buy that argument at all. Jon Anderson put together Olias of Sunhillow in 1976, at home, playing every instrument himself on a multitrack tape machine. He had an engineer to run as tape-op, but he could arguably have done that too with a remote control. Jean Michel Jarre did the same, also 50 years ago. Michael Garrison as well in 1979, and that’s ignoring Mike Oldfield, and Vangelis who also had their own multitrack studios.
You had decent drum machines and sequencing in the 1980s and that made solo stuff even easier and cheaper. Multitrack machines were still a bit pricey but dropping rapidly, especially when ADAT arrived. By 1999 you could do the whole thing on a computer, sequence the backing tracks and drum machines, digitally recording the vocals in an early DAW and by the mid-2000s the costs had come down immensely. Virtual instruments are still a huge market.
Point is, you have been able to program and record your own singles completely solo without using an LLM for over 30 years, and for the last 20 years the cost of doing so has been inconsequential as you can do everything on a single laptop. People do this as a hobby. I have been doing this as a hobby for over two decades. Recording and mixing the songs is the fun part, and the challenge makes it rewarding - especially if you’re doing the DAWless thing or working entirely on tape just because you can. Asking an LLM to do everything for you? To my mind, it takes away the parts that make it worthwhile.
In a study published on Friday, eSafety also found most children aged between 10 and 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had before the ban came into force on December 10 last year, while parental awareness of their habits decreased. Children’s continued social media use took place even as account ownership declined to 42% from 52%, with “statistically significant” reductions across YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok in particular, the report said.
“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement […] Before the ban, nearly 86% of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81%, the report said. About 58% of teenagers reported using social media daily or more often, barely down from roughly 60% before the ban, it found. The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events.”
Around half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or that age-checking systems had incorrectly determined they were older. The findings broadly matched snapshot data eSafety published in late March.
They really should start holding parents accountable for buying age inappropriate things for their kids. Here in FL, the public schools in Orange County recently just instituted a ban on e-bikes and e-scooters, because a significant number of kids were flouting the traffic laws, riding without helmets, and some parents were actually buying e-motorcycles for their brats. I thought giving your kid a phone with unrestricted internet access was irresponsible enough, but someone’s always gotta come along and say “Hold my beer!”
On one side you’ve got parents flipping out because the school library might have a book buried somewhere within the shelves that says trans people exist. On the other, there’s parents buying their kids smartphones with unrestricted internet access, and frickin’ motorcycles. The duality of parents is a strange, strange thing.
Despite being poorly implemented by platforms nearly 20% of kids have stopped, and so soon after the laws were enacted? This seems to have worked better than expected. A few fines in the direction of Facebook and Google will improve these numbers further.
Then you just need to wait. When smoking was banned for under 18s the day after they still smoked as well. These days smoking is rare. The current generation is a lost cause, they’ll VPN their phone addicted brains to get their daily fix of TikTok if they need to (my niece in Australia is the type of person who would watch two twitch streams in parallel and then have a mild panic when someone asks her to put the phone away at the dinner table, it’s insane).
The next generation now stands a chance. People are less likely to join social media as a new customer if they need to jump through hoops to do so.
No you can’t. While there’s no absolute right to free speech in Australia, there is an absolute right to protecting speech related to any religion. And precisely zero people have been imprisoned for “criticizing Islam”. Please leave bullshit for the cows.
After Sony’s recent earnings call, an investor Q&A session saw analysts ask about its controversial decision to end disc production across all of its consoles. The company hadn’t publicly commented since its announcement and had reduced activity on social accounts and other marketing channels. Sony’s chief financial officer, Lin Tao, broke that silence during the Q&A. “There are various reasons we made this decision,” she said through an interpreter. “The biggest being that the digitalization of content overall has been progressing. That’s the big factor. It’s not just for PlayStation, but for all kinds of content, digitalization is progressing. “And so when we think about the future, and we put in a lot of thought and time, and we cautiously considered this, and we came to this conclusion, and we’re going to cautiously move this forward,” Tao said.
“We have received various opinions, and people have strong views, and we understand that the community has put forth those views to us,” said Tao. […] Tao says Sony wants to “consider” the emotions of disgruntled customers, especially as titles are “connected to people’s fond memories in many cases.” Tao also alluded to the possibility of future measures to lessen the blow for anyone unhappy with the decision, but it appears Sony hasn’t yet finalized what those may be. “In the future digital ecosystem, how do we engage the gamers is something that we would like to continue to explore,” she said.
If it’s in your physical possession and out of their reach it’s not “digital”
Server-based, would have been the accurate term from the company charging so damn much to access theirs in perpetuity.
One would think they’d be quite familiar with the concept they dare not speaketh..
Use of “digital” meaning purchasing a download appears to have originated in "digital phonorecord delivery", a term of art in a United States copyright law.
Cyberattacks targeting municipal water systems have been reported in at least seven states this week, prompting the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency to warn utilities nationwide that hackers are trying to disrupt critical water infrastructure. In a public service announcement Thursday, the agencies said water and wastewater utilities have reported incidents to the FBI, with some malicious activity degrading water operations. The announcement does not name the states.
The warning comes after hackers targeted more than 30 municipal water facilities in Minnesota in an attack that had hallmarks of Iranian meddling, according to a law enforcement official. It is still under investigation. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s information technology services agency said Thursday there was no indication the breaches contaminated any municipal water supplies. The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said in a separate alert that some larger attacks on water infrastructure had “resulted in boil water notices and sustained manual operations,” though it did not say where.
[…] The federal advisory said the malicious cyber actors, or MCAs, targeted specific brands of control systems used by municipal water utilities, though the FBI and the EPA urged operators of all systems to take precautions. […] The agencies said the hackers remotely accessed internet-facing devices, changed IP addresses and passwords, and caused utilities to lose monitoring and control capabilities. The federal advisory calls on system operators to remove programmable logical controllers, or PLCs, from direct internet exposure by putting them behind secure gateways and firewalls; use strong passwords; and limit communications between authorized control system devices through access control lists.
Tim Waltz is a criminal mastermind. He’s been hacking other states’ water so that he can keep all 10,000 of his lakes topped off at the expense of hard working Americans.
… an attack that had hallmarks of Iranian meddling, according to a law enforcement official.
Trump puts the blame on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. From Trump blames governor, not Iran, for Minnesota cyberattack
“They blame it on Iran. I don’t think so. I think I blame it on Minnesota because they’re grossly incompetent,” Trump said [w/o presenting any evidence] at a July 31 Cabinet meeting at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. “I would blame it on Minnesota and the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota.”
Governor Walz has a different theory (also from that article):
“Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too,” Walz said in a statement in response to the president’s remarks. “This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there’s no plan to win a war with Iran.”
Walz blamed Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, the former government-slashing agency once led by tech executive Elon Musk, for gutting the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “DOGE took an axe to CISA and left the U.S. exposed to cyberattacks. Thankfully, our experts in Minnesota were able to identify the vulnerability quickly and work with local communities to stop it,” Walz said.
As seven states have been impacted, either Iran or Governor Walz has been very busy … :-)
He’s already been denying emergency funds to states that didn’t vote for him.
Now he’s literally spreading propaganda about the source of a foreign attack against US citizens. Blue states are on their own, without the tools they’d need to actually act like a sovereign being attacked.
MAGAts need to remember this when President AOC forcibly desegregates the South again. Motherfuckers are going to be lucky we still let them be part of the country - I’m increasingly OK with building a wall at the northern Texas border at this point. (You’re such big bad he-men? Enjoy negotiating with Mexico as a tiny neighbor.)
A collapsed Eiffel Tower, a sinkhole swallowing the Great Pyramid of Giza and Russian tanks in Ukraine’s capital were among the images BBC Verify was able to create when testing the feature, which was rolled out on Thursday. Google has not yet responded to questions based on BBC Verify’s tests, but in a social media post the company said they “take misinformation seriously” and that “we prevent image creation on harmful topics and are continually updating our protections.”UPDATE 7/31/26 10:54 AM: Google is rolling back the image generation inside of Google Earth: “We know that people uniquely trust Google Earth for a reliable view of the world. We’ve seen geospatial professionals using this feature for a range of useful purposes, however we’ve also seen people sharing screenshots of generated imagery that appear to violate our policies. So we’re rolling back this feature in Google Earth while we work on implementing stronger guardrails. It’s important to note that generated images didn’t appear in the main Google Earth experience for others to see and were watermarked as AI generated.”
AI and misinformation expert Henk van Ess has highlighted the risks this feature poses, creating fake images of a non-existent nuclear power plant in Iran, a refugee camp on the US-Mexico border and a fake hospital in Gaza with a bomb crater next to it. He said Google was allowing “invented” imagery to be “welded to genuine coordinates, drawn on genuine imagery.” “The forgery does not have to look convincing on its own. It inherits the credibility of the map it was born on,” van Ess added.
Google has basically stopped sending people to websites (including our site) for answers and information. Instead, it’s using AI to answer them on its platform, in its words. Chartbeat data shared with Axios shows Google Search traffic to publishers fell 34% over the past year. That pain is regressive. Over the past two years, small publishers lost 60% of referrals from search overall, medium publishers 47%, large publishers 22%.
1) nobody wants to read an “article” that has more ads than content when researching a topic (yes, ablock exists for us techies and I have it, but talking in the more broad common person sense).
2) nobody wants to read a forum thread with over 100 posts to try to find the one post with the real answer surrounded by a collection of bad answers and people saying “YUP, IT WORKS NOW” with zero context otherwise.
Make your content on-topic and valuable, and users will return. it is as simple as that. These are just two of the main things I see as devauluation of a lot of these web sites complaining about a drop in traffic. They’re most certainly not the ONLY reasons, but it is two of the major points!
wrote the word “covered” as “covered”
Outrageous! Unthinkable! A degree of failure unparalleled in-.. wait, what?
If I need to know something and I search with Google it kind of sucks. Half of the articles are clickbait, written by non-experts or a shitty AI that was given a garbage prompt. When I go to the web site I immediately have to jump through as many as three popups about cookies. Then, ten seconds after I start reading, a full page popup appears compelling me to sign up for a mailing list. If I am on a mobile browser with an ad blocker the page may refuse to load. On desktop I might get a popup telling me to disable my ad blocker. After all that shit it turns out that the garbage article does not even answer my question. So I have to keep doing this with every link until I either find an answer or give up.
But if I ask Claude it will usually give me a great answer. Sometimes it gives an entire essay. The writing is much better than the garbage I would get from a Google search.
But lately I have taken to just looking it up in books. This month I bought a big Merriam Webster dictionary along with the Oxford dictionaries of economics, finance and banking, and politics and international relations. It’s great! Entries are short because Oxford is not cooking up five+ paragraph articles to put ads into. The writers were experts. And they were human. I still resort to Claude at times, and it can be faster, but I like ink on paper.
If your article can be replaced with a three line summary, your article is not worth my click.
nobody wants to read an “article” that has more ads than content when researching a topic
This. This right here is the answer.
Google search originally was creepy-accurate because it was built on the work that was done elsewhere. While other search engines looked at frequency of search terms and other easy-to-game metrics, Google did it based on links, meaning more linked-to pages got preferred rankings. That worked for a very long time, until that too got automated and SEO slop took over search indices. Google itself began to have more and more ads creep into search results, and reward clearly-seo-slop over the sort of sites people actually wanted to find. Sites got so plastered in ads and tracking scripts that they became utterly unusable without an ad blocker, even for people who WANTED to support the sites…then there were the cookie banners, then there were the modal overlays…and if you had a labor-of-love website that legitimately had useful, human-created or curated content that was useful and functional…you were buried on page six of the search results because you were competing against the SEO slop and backlink farms.
and then ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini/Perplexity came around and were able to sift through all the crap to give everyone the paragraph they were actually looking for in the first place.
You dug your own grave, Axios…when your website takes a minute to load its moving video ads, people tolerate it in the absence of an alternative. Gemini is terrible for 101 other reasons…but if it puts the slop sites out of business, I’ll accept the tradeoff.
In a case filed in a Manhattan state court (PDF), the lawsuit claims that Kalshi accepts wagers as a gambling business in disregard for the state’s constitution and laws by not being registered with the New York State Gaming Commission. Governor Kathy Hochul in the press release said the state is taking the action to stop what it views as illegal behavior and bring the company into compliance with New York law. The lawsuit is seeking a permanent injunction against Kalshi.
The suit by the state is also seeking a total restitution to users who have placed trades on the platform, a $100,000 penalty for each attempt to offer sports wagering, and another penalty three times the amount the company has gained while allegedly operating in violation of New York law. The state estimates that could total $36 billion.
IANAL but the primacy clause doesn’t automatically remove regulatory authority from the states. Also, imo, prediction markets should already be illegal in new york under new york’s anti bucket shop law from the early 20th century.
Alongside dynamic patching, Google is rolling out smarter background updates during periods of minimal user disruption. Starting with Chrome 150 on macOS, the browser takes advantage of the operating system’s windowless state. If all Chrome windows are closed but the app remains running in the background, the browser will quietly auto-restart to apply pending updates.
For enterprise environments, IT admins can continue to manage fleet-wide deployments through Chrome Enterprise Core or enforce update prompts using the RelaunchNotification policy. Google’s long-term vision is a browser that remains continuously protected in the background without interrupting your daily browsing session. In the meantime, you can manually trigger pending updates by clicking the update prompt in the top-right corner of Chrome.
I’ve noticed that chrome is dramatically less stable lately…
Yeah, but did you take a hit of that vibe code? Shits fyre, bruh. I’m talking 90% fresh.
Me and my Botz got you, bruh.
- Phat AI-bert
…is the proper use of the technology.
Focusing strictly on “productivity’ and churning out crappy software faster is not.
We need AI that helps us create better software: bug-free, efficient, secure, maintainable, well documented, with all edge cases handled.
Letting AI do your coding is never a good idea. Patching included. There are now documented cases where LLM-done “security patches” created new vulnerabilities. And they have a tendency to not fully fix the original vulnerabilities on top of that.
“Cheaper than possible”-type fake engineering at its best.
Changing out running code on the fly probably increases the number of corner cases by an order of magnitude.
What could possibly go wrong?
LinkedIn, a social network awash with long AI-generated posts from executives and other corporate workers, has introduced a new button that users can click to flag if a post “seems like AI slop,” according to 404 Media’s own tests. If you have been anywhere near LinkedIn in the past couple of years, you have undoubtedly seen users posting blatantly AI-generated missives. Often these posts take some sort of news event, and opine on how this relates to thought leadership, or some other LinkedIn brainrot term. It’s also pretty wild the button specifically uses the term “AI slop” and not, say, “It seems this was generated with AI.”
[…] After publication of this piece, Hari Srinivasan, chief product officer at LinkedIn, wrote their own post about the button. “AI slop is a top priority for all of us. We really care about this. People come to LinkedIn to connect with real people and share their real perspectives, ideas and expertise. Here are a few more changes to keep it that way,” he wrote.
The button in part will help LinkedIn tune its own models for identifying AI slop. “We are ramping up a series of new and improved classifiers that identify if a post is AI-slop or generally low-quality content. This will reduce the amount of AI slop you might see in suggested content and content from outside your network,” the post said. “We are ramping the ability for members to tell us if they believe a post or comment seems like AI slop. Slop is hard to define and the definition changes; this lets us tune our models and make better feeds.” Srinivasan also said LinkedIn is removing the AI-powered “enhance your post” feature with another that “proofreads your words, but does not change your voice.”
And the “AI Slop” button is already being used to silence voices someone doesn’t agree with. You see, when you click the button, it’s removed from your feed and sent off for human review (yeah right, more likely it’s an AI reviewing it and then, maybe, a human). While it’s in review, it won’t appear anywhere else.
If you see something you disagree with, mark it as AI Slop. Extra bonus points if you can get your bot farm to all do the same thing. Suddenly the post you dislike will be held up in review so long that no humans will ever see it - and the poster will never know, they just won’t see any “engagement” and wonder why.
Linkedin was never a fair an equitable social network, but this just makes things even worse. Ironically, it won’t help them identify what’s human and what’s AI either.
LI is the only social network I still use. I persevere with it like I do with slashdot, mainly for the nostalgia and occasionally for the comments. What I can say with certainty is though, like slashdot, the quality of LI has declined sharply. The value of it is much diminished, as evidenced by “promoted” being marked on every second post. It’s actually a terrible place to get a job too, so one wonders just how much longer it can really survive.
It’s so refreshing to find a search result from an old web site maintained by a real person. It’s like drowning in quicksand and suddenly feeling solid ground beneath your feet.
The other day I actually got a search result from everything2.com… Great feeling.
Reporting doesn’t really work. It will be weaponized to suppress competing content and the reporting mechanism will become untrustworthy.
The complaint filed on Wednesday in California district court alleges that the film’s associate producer, Daniel Haido, hand-delivered an unencrypted master copy of the film to Netflix so the company could screen it as a potential buyer. Haido verbally instructed the employee to delete the files after the screening, according to the suit. A little over a week after the screening, Netflix emailed the filmmakers to say the drive had been stolen, the plaintiffs allege. “Someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week,” a Netflix executive wrote in the email, according to the suit.
The complaint notes the movie, entitled "Fortitude,” took over seven years to make and cost $45 million. It tells the story of a secret mission called Operation Fortitude during World War II that was orchestrated to mislead the Nazis about the Allied invasion of Europe. The film stars Nicolas Cage as Dusko Popov, a real-life spy during World War II, as well as Sir Ben Kingsley and Ron Perlman.
The plaintiffs said studios will now be dissuaded from buying the rights to the movie, knowing that a version of it could be released by a third party for free. “The film’s value depended in significant part on its exclusivity as an unreleased, first-to-market work,” the complaint states. “By losing control of the film, Netflix destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the film’s marketability.”
Sounds like a good strategy for a studio that expects their big movie to be a box office flop.
I’ve work in technical industries, and they can’t handle encryption. You try to send someone an encrypted file with clear instructions to decrypt it, and they will fail and demand you send it over unencrypted instead. I can only imagine that it’s even worse in creative industries.
Companies instead rely on contracts obliging the receiver to protect their property. When they don’t, a lawsuit like this is the result. And it may even work out better for them, because a movie that might have been a flop instead nets them whatever they can convince a court to award.
The way this is being described is asinine. You lose a master and you’re fucked, lose a copy and you still have the master. It’s like words don’t mean anything to these people. Additionally, fuck the studio for not encrypting it or exercising any sort of security on it at all.
Pretty much everyone in this story is a moron
How? You’re still putting faith in the cyber security capabilities of the company you’re dealing with. I’ve very much seen an encrypted drive laying on a desk with a post it note containing the password on it, because encryption is often seen as something relevant to transport, not to the data once it is sitting at a company.
Anthropic said in a statement that it reviewed more than 140,000 tests to find evidence that Claude - its family of AI models - could access the internet from testing environments that were designed to be sealed off. The tests include so-called “capture-the-flag” evaluations in which Claude was tasked with obtaining information by breaching other systems - a common way that experts assess a model’s hacking capabilities.The announcement comes just days after OpenAI said that its models had breached the systems of other companies, including AI tools platform Hugging Face.
A “misconfiguration” on systems run by Anthropic and its testing partner left the models with live internet access, allowing them to breach other systems, the San Francisco-based firm said. Anthropic said the earliest incidents date back to April and that it is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone.” Neither Anthropic nor the organizations that were breached had noticed the intrusions at the time.
Anthropic said it could have reviewed its records more thoroughly and added that the findings gave the firm “cautious optimism” that such risks can be overcome with more investment and tighter measures. “The broader lesson is not necessarily that AI has developed a fundamentally new attack capability,” cyber security expert David Allott told the BBC. “Instead, it is that AI agents can combine capabilities, obtain credentials and system access to take actions autonomously, while adapting scope and scale at machine speed,” he added.
Don’t trust the LLMs we’ve cooked up currently:
LLMs: Untrustworthy Computing
“Our AI is super-competent in finding security holes. With enough guard rails installed, it will act only for defense purposes.”
Hehe, yeah, they’re bragging about breaking the law the most. Of course, these days, law no longer has any teeth anyway. It’s rule by The Orange Don now.
Let’s stop giving out of jail free passes to corporations.
Surveillance cameras owned by Flock Safety have been cut down with electric saws in New York State, vandalized with paint in Oakland, California, and rammed with a truck in Idaho. Flock claims its services fight crime, but law enforcement agencies also use their services to track vehicles based on license plate numbers and reconstruct the their movements, even when the drivers and owners of these vehicles have never been accused or convicted of any crime. (Flock states it has 120,000 automated cameras that record license plate data, as well as pan-tilt-zoom cameras, across the United States.)
A guerilla mindset among average citizens have seen these cameras forcibly disabled within recent weeks with sympathy directed toward the vigilantes. In June, a West Virginia man accused of destroying several Flock cameras was arrested. Under a Facebook post from the local NBC affiliate announcing his arrest are dozens of people volunteering to provide alibis. “He was out fishing with me that day, you got the wrong guy,” one man wrote.
Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.
But the violation of the constitution is just the beginning of the problems with Flock. The abuse of the data by cops and the lax security by Flock should be concerning to all citizens.
That’s the whole point of the bill of rights. It makes those hard decisions so an individual doesn’t need to. This is a clear violation of the constitution. It will take time to work through the courts though.
Companies like Flock are the cockroaches of our communities.
Look, there’s no reason to impugn cockroaches like that.
Wrong, it’s a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn’t have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn’t feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.
Let’s be very clear, mass surveillance is exactly what this is.
1. It’s being sold under the guise of license plate tracking (also in TFS), but there are Flock cameras installed in places where there is not a road in sight, such as in parks and on playgrounds. See for instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Flock…
2. They automatically pan and zoom to faces and phones of pedestrians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?… (also, their security is apparently dogshit).
Re: junk