Lack of accountability for the companies that allow their services & platforms to be used for spam/scamming.

Take DocuSign for instance. Still, this many years later, is a major source of phishing emails from their free trials. DocuSign could easily shut this down today by either requiring a CC for the trial, or forcing a call with a sales rep to start a trial. But they don't, they continue to allow their service to be used for wide scale phishing.

Atera, an RMM, is another one that has been a big source of malware delivery, also via the free trials.

Shutting down the trial accounts after the fact does nothing, the emails already went out.

I feel like there's no way for them to win, though. The kind of accountability you're talking about what require them to do essentially tons of KYC/AML vetting, and HN would be equally outraged about that.

It's a little hard to get outraged about that hypothetical, given that legitimate usage of DocuSign typically involves sending them documents containing all sorts of sensitive information.

Probably because the vast majority of people either don't know a different world outside of mobile, or actively wants to be nannied or a combination of both.

It used to be that there was Android for those who didn't want the Apple way of doing things and wanted more control over their pocket computer, but Google saw how rich Apple got off the walled garden and has been slowly boiling the frog in that direction for years now.

The US auto manufacturers could compete, they just don't want to.

They've played their own regulatory capture games here and have all but abandoned the concept of affordable small cars & EVs. They've decided to go all in on $80k luxury EVs and enormous trucks (while being protected by 25% tariffs on light truck imports), and the stupid CAFE footprint loophole.

Maybe if they'd stop flooding our streets with ridiculously sized vehicles and actually tried to compete, it would be a different story. They aren't even trying.

We are just as capable of offering subsidies, if thats what it takes, to make small affordable EVs.

> We get degrees, we sit at desks, maybe even sit at home, work on computers, and generate an order of magnitude more wealth than our screw turning counterpart overseas

Generate wealth for whom, though?

That's also ignoring the entire economic underclass that system creates of service & gig workers that can no longer afford to live in the cities in which they work. Not everyone has the ability or desire for knowledge work.

The US still needs to catch up too. We have an infrastructure problem. Where is our high speed rail and public transit? Cycling infrastructure? Renewables? Housing in high demand areas? Socialized healthcare? Safety nets for said economic underclass?

We are behind in so many ways because we view wealth generation for the top xy% as the only metric of success.

Agreed. We can't expect human behavior to change, because it won't. We need to design safer systems instead.

The only "law" I agree with is:

> Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems.

And that starts with framing, especially in the clickbait "AI deleted the prod database" headlines. Maybe we just start with saying "careless developer deleted prod" because really, they did. Careless use of a tool is firmly the fault of the human.

> shows how little they care.

I think they do care, but they care about relevance, not browser monoculture. Doesn't matter how good Trident was, no one was ever going to use it. Even Firefox is barely hanging on, and the only reason Safari is still somewhat relevant is because it's the only choice on iOS.

And my relevance I mean their bread and butter, enterprise, not consumers. Edge is what lets MS give enterprise IT departments maximum control without the grumbling of "we'd rather have Chrome" from the end users.

Well that's the thing. I don't think anybody didn't use Edge because it was a different engine. The majority of users have no idea that edge is just chrome now.

It's just when they moved to chromium they also stepped up the marketing around it and all the lock-in in Windows and that's really what got people to use it. Basically the same thing they did to make IE a monopoly.

They also really heavily pushed companies to start using it. Every time we had a call with a MS consultant and we shared a screen they had to bitch about us not using edge, as if they were on commission or something. Eventually they manipulated our leadership into mandating edge to all employees. It's totally locked down now too, it's terrible for the users.

But my point is, they could have done this with the trident version of edge too. I've never heard anyone complain about compatibility. Whenever people didn't want to use edge it was because of a (totally justified) distrust of Microsoft. We should never give control over the internet to them again after what they did with IE (making it a monopoly through illegal means and then leaving it to wither away full of security holes). But unfortunately at work they have got them to remove all other browsers :(

I've always hated that argument. Yes, if someone as access to your local file system, you are already SOL, but if that machine is part of an org, they aren't necessarily SOL except for now those plain text passwords can potentially be used for easier lateral movement to hit other, more privileged accounts (if you had access/had them saved in that password manager). At minimum, those credentials can now be used to phish the rest of your organization.

Stopping the spread is just as important as protecting any individual machine.

They are the wolf. The product is the user's attention, they are ad delivery networks disguised as "social media."

The entire revenue model is based on on engagement and clicks, the product is incentivized to maximize time spent on the service at any cost. Addiction is a core engineering requirement.

> I'm assuming they think this will garner support from the tech community as well.

I don't understand their thinking if this is the case. DDoSing widely used project is going to turn people against you, not generate support.

> My take on it is I would rather code than ask the machine to code.

Same. I don't really care about productivity or if AI is so much more productive, tbh. I'd rather just change careers at this point. I'd prefer not to just be a full time code reviewer while my agents go do the actual work.

But I'm also tired of this in between state. Either rip the bandaid off already, fire everyone, and force governments to implement UBI so I can finally be free, or finally admit that the productivity gains have been vastly oversold and the LLM apocalypse is only a half truth, half grift and get on with our lives.

> But I'm also tired of this in between state. Either rip the bandaid off already, fire everyone, and force governments to implement UBI so I can finally be free, or finally admit that the productivity gains have been vastly oversold and the LLM apocalypse is only a half truth, half grift and get on with our lives.

I'm also tired. I wish this would happen too.

I just don't think it will because it would devastate the market.