| ▲ | DropDead 3 hours ago |
| Big companys need to start caring more security and privacy of its users and employees |
|
| ▲ | steve1977 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Maybe the board and shareholders of big companies need to be held accountable financially instead of being able to hide behind legal constructs. |
|
| ▲ | phyzome 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People need to start voting in politicians who will meaningfully punish corporations who don't. |
|
| ▲ | bitmasher9 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think we’ll start seeing consulting agencies advertise how many vulnerabilities that can resolve per million token, and engineering teams feeling pressure to merge this generated code. We’ll also see more token heavy services like dependabot, sonar cube, etc that specialize in providing security related PR Reviews and codebase audits. This is one of the spaces where a small team could build something that quickly pulls great ARR numbers. |
| |
| ▲ | contractlens_hn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The same vertical-specialist logic applies in legal tech. Law firms are drowning in contract review — NDA, MSAs, leases — and generic AI gives them vague answers with no accountability. The teams winning there aren't building 'AI for lawyers', they're building AI that cites every answer to a specific clause and pins professional liability to the output. That's a very different product than a chatbot. | | |
| ▲ | dgb23 an hour ago | parent [-] | | What is needed there are custom harnesses that don’t let the LLM decide what to do when. Use their power of pattern matching on data, not on decision transcriptions. |
| |
| ▲ | delecti 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does SonarCube use LLMs these days? It always seemed like a bloated, Goodhart's law inviting, waste of time, so hearing that doesn't surprise me at all. |
|
|
| ▲ | fnoef 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nah. They care about profits only, the sooner the better, so everyone can cash out and move to their next “venture” |
| |
|
| ▲ | estimator7292 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The problem is that they don't "need" to. There's no consequences for not caring, and no incentive to care. We need laws and a competent government to force these companies to care by levying significant fines or jail time for executives depending on severity. Not fines like 0.00002 cents per exposed customers, existential fines like 1% of annual revinue for each exposed customer. If you fuck up bad enough, your company burns to the ground and your CEO goes to jail type consequences. |
| |
| ▲ | rafram 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This kind of response went out of fashion after Enron. Burning an entire company to the ground (in that case Arthur Andersen) and putting thousands out of work because of the misdeeds of a few - even if they were due to companywide culture problems - turned out to be disproportionate, wasteful, and cruel. | | |
| ▲ | knome 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | the answer to that is a functional social safety net for the innocent employees to land in, not allowing companies to violate the law with impunity. | | |
| ▲ | rafram 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re describing a system where taxpayers foot the bill for data breaches. | | |
| ▲ | wry_durian an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That's exactly backwards. In the current regime, it's precisely the billions of people who are affected by data breaches (and who happen to be taxpayers!) who are footing the bill. | |
| ▲ | folkrav 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We already are in a system where we foot most of the consequences. | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not at all. Make the guilty corporation pay for all of it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | drstewart an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This. Severe harsh consequences are the best way to prevent crime. If we also make the penalty for every crime the death penalty we'll have no more crime. Very simple solution no one has thought of. | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the government wants me to take copyright and IP laws seriously, then they need to take my personal information seriously too. |
|
