That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.

This isn't really the same kind of bug. Those bugs made instructions emit the wrong answer, which is obviously really bad, and they're really rare. The bugs in the article make instructions take different amounts of time depending on what else the CPU has done recently, which isn't something anyone would notice except that by asking the kernel to do something and measuring the time to execute affected instructions, an attacker that only had usermode access could learn secrets that should only be available to the kernel.

Not growing at an absurd rate doesn’t mean their business model is stagnating.

AFAIK, you have the option to enable ads on your lock screen. It's not something that's forced upon you. Last time I took a look at the functionality, they "paid" you for the ads and you got to choose which charity to support with the money.

I'm specifically talking about toil when it comes to my job as a software developer. I already know I need an if statement and a for loop all wrapped in a try catch. Rather then spending a couple minutes coding that I have cursor do it for me instantly then fill out the actual code. Or, ive written something in python and it needs to be converted to JavaScript. I can ask Claude to convert it one to one for me and test it, which comes back with either no errors or a very simple error I need to fix. It takes a minute. Instead I could have taken 15min to rewrite it myself and maybe make more mistakes that take longer.