1
2
no words (thelemmy.club)
submitted 7 hours ago by [M] to c/StopAI
 
 
3
4
submitted 2 days ago by [M] to c/StopAI
5
 
 

Update: PHP Foundation Says a 2024 Audit Found the First Signs of the Flaw In the same post, the PHP Foundation said a core developer first found signs of the out-of-memory flaw behind CVE-2026-109618 during PHP's 2024 external audit, but a working attack was only theorized and no concrete route to code execution was found then. Competing fixes each risked breaking compatibility, opening denial-of-service paths, or forcing changes on third-party extensions, and a small team struggled to agree, so work on a fix stalled for months. The Foundation called the delay "a structural failure" of its decision process and its resources.

The 2026 reports from Calif, OpenAI and Wiz, which used AI tools, established the working exploit that made the flaw's full impact clear and moved the fix to the top of the queue. The Foundation said it has since changed how it makes security decisions and added staff and tooling to catch similar problems sooner.

6
 
 

Cross posted from https://quokk.au/c/fuck_ai/p/1261623/anthropic-posts-staggering-80-7-billion-net-loss-in-first-half-of-2026-as-ipo-approaches

Anthropic, the AI startup behind Claude, recorded a staggering $80.7 billion net loss in the first six months of 2026, exposing the enormous financial costs behind one of Silicon Valley's fastest-growing companies just as it prepares for a blockbuster initial public offering. The loss, disclosed in a draft IPO prospectus reviewed by The Wall Street

7
submitted 5 days ago by [M] to c/StopAI
 
 

Cross posted from https://feddit.online/c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world/p/2040484/ai-tool-used-in-asylum-case-reviews-failing-accuracy-tests

Asylum seekers are not informed that caseworkers use an AI tool to summarise their interviews used by decision makers

8
 
 

Cross posted from https://piefed.social/c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world/p/2506827/one-of-the-biggest-game-decompilation-sites-is-closing-because-ai-has-broken-the-commun

“Bad actors” are abusing open source decomps in “increasingly troublesome ways”…

9
submitted 5 days ago by [M] to c/StopAI
 
 

Cross posted from https://piefed.social/c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world/p/2506754/websites-are-closing-their-doors-to-ai-agents

OpenAI, Meta, Google, and others are positioning AI agents as personal assistants that can perform a range of tasks online. But the web is becoming increasingly unfriendly toward agents, undermining their usefulness.

10
 
 
11
 
 

Cross posted from https://piefed.social/c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world/p/2501952/woman-arrested-after-blocking-delivery-robot-in-philadelphia-confrontation

A Philadelphia woman was arrested after allegedly refusing to move out of the path of a delivery robot.

12
 
 

Cross posted from https://sh.itjust.works/post/68476229

Carolyn Marvin is my hero. wiki

13
 
 

Cross posted from https://thelemmy.club/post/57515042

US tech giants including Nvidia, SpaceX, an Anthropic want to use AI to preserve US primacy worldwide and control by billionaires over Americans at home;

They are selling this profit-only dystopia through the false promise of "jobs" and "re-industrialization;"

They are particularly keen in "winning" against China to prevent an alternative global order from permanently dissolving Western monopolies and the unwarranted power it has given them for decades/generations;

Resources:

USA Today - Jensen Huang says AI is 're-industrializing' the US, Elon Musk says it 'needs a lot of energy': • Jensen Huang says AI is 're-industrializin... CSPAN - President Trump Hosts Tech & AI Executives at White House: • President Trump Hosts Tech & AI Executives...

14
 
 

Cross posted from https://feddit.org/post/36757815

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/36751895

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/72389992

O&G companies are pushing more AI so they can sell more fossil fuels to AI data centres.

O&G companies are also investing in AI in the expectation that AI data centres will pay them back by buying their fossil fuels.

Then of course, they'll tell us they're only meeting our own "demand" for fossil energy.

Edit: I just noted this story is from 2025. Sorry about that.

15
 
 

Would you call large language models training on an internet’s worth of content “an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions”? Or perhaps you prefer the “largest theft of labor in human history”?

Take your pick because those two options — and many more — appear in a newly unredacted court filing in the ongoing New York Times v. OpenAI/Microsoft case. The motion was filed by a group of news publishers led by The New York Times. The most inflammatory language was not written by the Times’ lawyers, however, but by OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s own executives.

“Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” wrote Brent Hecht, Microsoft’s director of applied science, in the unearthed documents. “Almost no one intended for content they created to be used in this fashion, nor are they compensated for its use,” he wrote

In an emailed statement, a Microsoft spokesperson said Hecht’s comments “reflect one employee’s individual perspective, are not a legal analysis, and do not represent the company’s views.”

AI companies have publicly argued that their training falls under the legal doctrine of fair use. Publishers, however, have long warned that the AI companies’ plan to take content without compensation will severely undermine the news industry whose work trains those models. It appears at least some within the AI industry agree with the assessment.

Internal Microsoft communications identified the “real risk” that generative AI could “significantly disrupt the employment of the very people who generated the data on which the foundation model was trained.” A separate policy document put it like this: “LLMs are a product that destroys its supply chain.”

The current approach has created a “doom loop,” according to another internal Microsoft document.

“Our AI content strategy has started a ‘doom loop’ that will hurt the performance of our models and the entire web at the same time,” the document reads. “It is highly unusual that an end-product threatens the economic foundations of its essential suppliers, but that is the situation we have created for our LLM business with respect to its ‘content supply chain.’”

Elsewhere, Nick Turley, OpenAI’s head of ChatGPT, acknowledged that publishers face an “existential threat” from OpenAI’s products. The AI tools “are largely substitutive, period” and “will get more and more substitutive as they get better.”

OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman told his colleagues: “[W]e are excellent at news btw. every time i do any generative stuff on NYT it seems to predict the next sentence pretty well.” Brockman also wrote that OpenAI’s model “seems to be particularly good at predicting text of news articles like whenever i have it complete in the middle of a sentence in a NYT article, it seems to complete the sentence on point.”

The filing also shows that OpenAI employees went out of their way to evade news paywalls to scrape websites. (When told about “a hack to get around nytimes paywall,” Brockman responded “ah nice.”)

Previously, these statements were heavily redacted or under seal. Some portions remain sealed.

“Easy to see why the AI companies had so many redactions,” wrote Digital Content Next CEO Jason Kint, who first shared the unredacted documents on X. “Their own people wrote the lede for NYT.”

16
 
 

“Remember: Claude Enterprise will continue to be available based on role and business need,” the announcement adds. “Providing a WBS and obtaining a license does not guarantee indefinite or ongoing access to Claude. License allocations are reviewed periodically, and access may be reassessed based on business priorities, role requirements, usage patterns, and evolving workforce needs. As needs change, licenses may be reallocated to help ensure they are used where they provide the greatest value.”

Another employee wrote, “Honestly, this is disappointing.” They added they use Claude Code “extensively” to build and test an “AI accelerator” that is being developed for multiple Accenture clients. Their monthly usage is usually around $500 to $1,000, they added.

17
 
 

OpenAI lets anyone inject ads into ChatGPT users’ sessions, targeting specific groups of people based on their email address, phone number, or a unique identifier on their phone, according to 404 Media’s own tests of ChatGPT’s advertising ecosystem.

While the ad targeting available in ChatGPT is somewhat standard practice across the advertising industry, the chatbot’s one billion monthly active users may not understand they, in some cases, are being specifically targeted because of their personal data the advertiser has uploaded to OpenAI. ChatGPT’s ad targeting is also novel in that it is also based on the prompts users enter into the chatbot, prompts that users may assume are private but which, as 404 Media has previously shown, may be reviewed by humans. Or in this case, used for ad targeting purposes.

“OpenAI’s advertising products are operating just like most other massive companies which start to monetize their audiences — they are boiling the frog and hoping their users won’t notice the privacy implications from their new ads,” Zach Edwards, co-founder of DecryptAds, a company that collects online advertising data for research purposes, told 404 Media.

OpenAI first introduced ChatGPT ads in the U.S. in February, before steadily expanding to other territories. When a Free or Go user types a prompt into ChatGPT, the chatbot will often display a related advertisement at the bottom of its answer. This month, OpenAI went a step further and pushed ads alongside image generation results.

To get a better understanding of how exactly ChatGPT’s ad targeting works, 404 Media ran two advertisements inside ChatGPT. Both of them read, “ChatGPT isn’t private. OpenAI hires humans to read users’ chats. Learn more,” and included a link to 404 Media’s recent article revealing Project Lily, in which contractors read real users’ ChatGPT prompts. When creating an ad campaign, OpenAI lets advertisers provide “context hints” which can better target the advertisement to people using ChatGPT for certain things.

“Describe the conversations, topics, or keywords where your products or services may be relevant; these hints guide matching but aren't exact-match targeting rules,” OpenAI’s site says. 404 Media added the context “people searching for topics that discuss privacy, or the privacy of ChatGPT chats themselves, or people who are asking about current technology and AI topics.”

OpenAI also lets an advertiser, which can be a big business or essentially a random person, create what it calls an “audience.” This is a list of specific ChatGPT users the advertiser wants to target. OpenAI offers a few options to build this audience, including uploading “raw” email addresses and phone numbers. OpenAI then checks if these pieces of personal data correspond to a real ChatGPT user, and if so, the advertiser can target those people with its adverts.

Other options are hashed emails and phone numbers, hashed meaning the advertiser is uploading digitally obscured versions of peoples’ emails and phone numbers rather than the raw data; and Android advertising IDs. These are unique identifiers issued to every Android phone.

There are some caveats: to make an audience ready for “inclusion” to be targeted, the uploaded list must be more than 25,000 entries long. Otherwise those ChatGPT users can only be marked for “exclusion,” meaning that the audience explicitly won’t be targeted by the ad. Other advertising systems, like Meta’s, hash the data when someone uploads a list of peoples’ raw email addresses and phone numbers. OpenAI did not provide an answer when asked if it did the same, and instead reiterated that advertisers can upload both raw personal data and hashed versions. An OpenAI spokesperson told 404 Media the uploaded files are deleted after processing, which is usually within 24 hours of upload. “Being on an advertiser’s list does not, by itself, cause an ad to be shown. Inclusion filters and audience bid adjustments require at least 25,000 matched users, and advertisers cannot see which individuals matched or select specific people within an audience,” the spokesperson added.

ChatGPT users can opt-out of “ads personalization,” but that doesn’t stop ads or tracking entirely. “Allow ChatGPT to use your past chats, activity, and preferences to select ads. Ads may still be based on your current chat,” the setting reads.

Companies even exist to surface other peoples’ ChatGPT ads now. ChatGPT Ad Library, for example, lets people search for particular companies to see what ads they are running, or search for certain topics, or even see which specific prompts are surfacing which ads. The prompt “free ai video generator with sound” returns an ad for an AI video editing tool; “which AI moderator is best,” returns a company that says it will remove harmful content from the web; and “best tools to monitor reviews before they damage app rankings” returned another ad from the same company.

ChatGPT Ad Library says it does this by entering prompts into ChatGPT and recording what ads come back. The site says it has captured at least 43,410 ads across 415,289 placements. “We probe ChatGPT with realistic consumer prompts and record every sponsored card it returns — the creative, the advertiser, and the triggering prompt. Figures reflect our captured sample, not OpenAI's internal data,” its site reads.

Edwards from DecryptAds added, “We need to strengthen data broker laws so that advertisers sharing sensitive PII [personally identifiable information] with ad tech companies like OpenAI are required to register as data brokers and give people a clear process for removing their data from these systems.”

About the author Joseph is an award-winning investigative journalist focused on generating impact. His work has triggered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fines, shut down tech companies, and much more. More from Joseph Cox

18
19
 
 

JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, SMBC and MUFG are quietly shopping pieces of the AI debt pile they helped build, a sign the lenders closest to the money have started hedging their own bet.

20
submitted 1 week ago by [M] to c/StopAI
 
 
21
 
 

Cross posted from https://lemmy.ml/post/54018292

22
 
 

Cross posted from https://lemmy.ca/post/72356176

Trump's DOJ would probably intervene in all other objections to datacenter projects, at least on appeal, if oligarchs lose anything.

National Security vs. Clean Air: The Legal Battle Over Musk’s Memphis Supercomputer

MEMPHIS, TN — A fierce legal battle is unfolding in federal court over Elon Musk’s xAI "Colossus" supercomputer facility, illuminating a stark conflict between local environmental protection and federal artificial intelligence policy. What began as a local dispute over unpermitted pollution has escalated into a high-stakes constitutional showdown, following an extraordinary intervention by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Unpermitted Build and Environmental Breaches

In rushing to bring its Colossus 1 and 2 data centers online, xAI and its subsidiary MZX Tech bypassed standard environmental review. The company installed an unauthorized grid of 27 industrial methane gas turbines—effectively building a 495-megawatt power plant without securing mandatory air permits.

The facility severely breaches federal Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. The greater Memphis metropolitan area already fails to meet federal ozone safety limits. Local community groups, spearheaded by the NAACP and Earthjustice, allege that xAI’s unpermitted plant has the potential to pump an industrial torrent of toxic pollutants directly into surrounding neighborhoods every year:

  • 1,700 tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), a primary driver of heavy, localized smog.

  • 180 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), microscopic soot that triggers asthma and cardiovascular distress.

  • 19 tons of formaldehyde, a highly hazardous air pollutant linked to elevated cancer risks.

Because these turbines operate 24/7 next to residential sectors, churches, and schools with predominantly Black populations, the lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction to halt the environmental harm.

The DOJ Intervention: Challenging Legal Precedent

The litigation shifted dramatically when the Trump administration's DOJ filed an aggressive motion to intervene and dismiss the case with prejudice. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. signed a memo asserting that a court-ordered power shutdown threatens national security by choking off the artificial intelligence innovation supporting military operations. (ie. skynet)

In doing so, the DOJ is attempting to dismantle 50 years of environmental legal precedent:

  • Challenging the CAA Citizen Suit Provision: Section 304 of the Clean Air Act explicitly grants private citizens the right to sue corporate polluters to enforce the law when regulators fail to act. The DOJ is arguing that the executive branch has the unilateral, unchallenged authority to veto citizen suits if a private project aligns with federal economic or military goals.

  • Undermining Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill: This foundational Supreme Court precedent established that the judiciary can halt multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects if they violate federal safety and environmental laws, regardless of economic cost. The DOJ's new defense model argues that "AI Primacy" and sovereign technological dominance legally supersede standard statutory environmental protections.

The government is actively demanding zero operational restrictions and zero financial compensation, establishing a framework where private tech firms are granted legal immunity from localized physical harm if their computing models are labeled vital to the state.

The Political Undercurrent

The unprecedented federal intervention to protect xAI's unpermitted facility coincides with Musk’s massive financial role in the active political landscape. While Musk contributed roughly $250 million to $290 million to help return Republicans to power in the 2024 presidential race, his spending has expanded during the 2026 midterm election cycle.

According to recent disclosures tracked by The New York Times, Musk has quietly funneled a staggering $366 million to Republican groups and candidates during the 2025–2026 cycle. This includes a $158 million single donation to the Senate Leadership Fund and over $76 million pumped directly into his America PAC to build sprawling voter-turnout operations.

As the largest individual private donor in modern American history, Musk's financial weight forms the backdrop of the federal government's legal defense, leaving local communities to pay the price in the air they breathe.

23
 
 

Cross posted from https://lemmy.world/post/53133843

This post is focused mainly on my own personal feelings and impacts but don't think I don't also see the broader societal impacts. I'll touch on them too, but mostly this is just my personal perspective. I figure it may resonate with others given that Lemmy has so many "tech people."

I have a "safe" software job which for years I've considered quitting in order to improve my mental health. I have been saving money for a long time. Prior to LLMs slowly automating jobs like mine away, I felt like I could quit, take a couple months off, and then find a better job. Maybe even come back to the same company after some recovery from burnout. It's taken several years to feel able to do such a thing.

Today, however, I am afraid to do that. I am worried finding a job will no longer be somewhat trivial like it was a decade ago. There will be less software jobs, and the ones that exist will be pushing LLMs on their devs hard. My current job is doing that, less overtly than many companies would, but I am feeling the pressure.

So besides the feeling of having my options eliminated, I'm feeling actually likely to be laid off in the next few years, so I'm "lucky to even have it". In the meantime, there is a malaise in the air on my team. People are using LLMs for work but I think most everyone has pretty mixed feelings about it. Especially given the climate impact we're setting in motion.

Then outside my workplace, it feels like the general population is engaged in a mass psychosis. Many people genuinely are convinced that slop is good enough for most things. I know that teachers are using it to create shitty lessons in schools, and students are using it to avoid doing work. There literally is no chance that society will not see a slew of very negative consequences from this.

The creativity I expressed in my work is being devalued and stolen and I cannot even feel safe taking any time off or can find another job without a lot of pain, or any solace in the fact that I should be set for retiring without much worry. I know that it was a privilege to have ever felt able to take off, however it feels bad for that opportunity to have been taken away by ruthless capitalists pushing shitty robots on every living human.

I'm thinking about all this a lot, and it's hard not to. It sucks. That's all.

24
25
 
 
view more: next ›