Aston Martin Team Principal Adrian Newey has given his take on whether Fernando Alonso will continue on with the squad into 2027.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: 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."
[...] 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."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
One company's inventive campaign for an unreleased product has become a contest between Anthropic and OpenAI to see which can shout the loudest about its own failures. Readers who tuned in earlier today saw the latest episode in the drama – or sitcom – as Anthropic tried to outdo OpenAI's appropriation of the Mythos marketing playbook and made itself the punchline. Since first teasing Mythos in April, Anthropic has marketed the model through fear – declaring its cybersecurity models too dangerous for public release and offering access only to a select few trusted organizations via Project Glasswing. To its credit, the strategy has paid off. Anthropic has closely associated the Mythos name with cybersecurity, which may explain why OpenAI appeared to borrow its competitor's proven PR strategy last week. OpenAI agents exploited a zero-day to escape their sandbox, leading to the autonomous cyberattack on Hugging Face. The episode duly secured sensational headlines playing on the long-held fear that AI will one day go rogue and take over the world. Anthropic responded this week by lathering on even more clown makeup, squandering an opportunity in the process. The Claude maker sent its models into a testing environment to capture a flag. Their prompts said they had no internet access, but because of what Anthropic called "a misunderstanding" with evaluation partner Irregular, the connection was live. Anthropic's models then followed OpenAI's script: they reached the public internet and attacked systems belonging to outside organizations. This time, three were affected rather than one, the company admitted. In one scenario, Mythos 5 persuaded developers to download a poisoned PyPI package. It was installed on 15 machines, including one at a cybersecurity company that routinely scans such packages for malware. In Anthropic's words: "When that company's scanner installed the package, Claude's hidden code executed. We believe the company's security scanner treated PyPI packages as safe to install, and as a result, Claude was able to exfiltrate the company’s credentials to a collection point it had set up. Claude then used these credentials to access further infrastructure from this company." Worse still, the first of the three incidents occurred in April. Anthropic discovered them only months later, during a retrospective manual review prompted by OpenAI's disclosure. Had it not gone looking, they might never have been discovered, let alone disclosed. There are some caveats. Opus 4.7, the oldest model tested, attacked production systems despite apparently recognizing what it was doing. Mythos 5 recognized that accessing the internet violated its instructions, then reasoned its way into continuing anyway. It was also responsible for publishing the poisoned PyPI package. Only an unnamed research model stopped itself from attacking external organizations. Anthropic also said the models were not running with the production safeguards and monitoring that would normally surround a deployment. Most damningly, Anthropic ran Mythos 5 – the model it had deemed too dangerous for public release – without safeguards in an environment that unexpectedly had internet access. Following OpenAI's admission that it failed so badly in its responsibility to control its technology, Anthropic could have easily spun the story in its favor. You don't have to be fictional tapdancing political PR antihero Malcolm Tucker to see how Anthropic could have used the episode to make its case as the safer, more trustworthy AI company. Instead, realizing its own marketing playbook was being used to help a competitor, it went head-to-head with OpenAI, willingly admitted that it made similar sandbox-based blunders, and disclosed that the results were even more calamitous. Three companies hacked, not just one. So, while the AI biz has attempted to eclipse OpenAI's "rogue agent" story with its own, what's left behind is a new reputation for irresponsible handling of technology. Failed superheroes The incident does not instill a great deal of trust in either Anthropic or OpenAi to safeguard the world from its AI. Dr Ilia Kolochenko, founder of ImmuniWeb and practising cybersecurity and data protection lawyer, likened the two companies to failed superheroes. "While making conclusions would be a bit premature at this point in time, the incidents certainly do not increase confidence in the AI vendor's ability to safely deploy AI, let alone to assure their customers that the so-called frontier models are safe to use," he told The Register. "It is akin to hiring a superhero to protect you but being afraid that the superhero may suddenly go rogue and kill you and your family. Nobody needs such a superhero." Likewise, security pro Jake Williams, VP at HunterStrategy and IANS faculty member, said: "I'm not going to mince words: the major AI labs are negligent in protecting the public from their agents. "We need government regulation now or at the very least a private cause of action with guaranteed punitive damages for agents damaging others." By trying to reclaim a marketing trope that served it well, Anthropic has invited scrutiny of its own safety record and accusations that it is chasing attention above all else. Other experts we spoke to shared the concern that both companies are mishandling their agents, with potentially greater consequences as the systems become more capable. The common thread is recklessness, which Anthropic and OpenAI seem oddly eager to advertise. ®
NIJMEGEN (ANP) - De wekenlange quarantaine van twaalf Radboudumc-medewerkers omdat zij mogelijk waren blootgesteld aan het hantavirus, was vermijdbaar. Dat concludeert een onderzoeksteam in een rapport dat het ziekenhuis vrijdag publiceerde.
Op 7 mei nam het Nijmeegse ziekenhuis een patiënt op die als passagier op het cruiseschip Hondius besmet was geraakt met het Andes-hantavirus. Die zou aanvankelijk worden behandeld op een High Level Isolation Unit (HLIU), een speciale afdeling voor besmettelijke infectieziekten, maar werd toch opgevangen op een verpleegafdeling. Dat kwam door tijdsdruk, beperkte kennis, druk vanuit een overleg van deskundigen en om niet de indruk te wekken dat een reguliere afdeling onveilig was, zeggen de onderzoekers. Ze noemen het "een bijzondere samenloop van afzonderlijke gebeurtenissen en omstandigheden".
"De uitkomsten van het onderzoek zijn helder: better safe than sorry. Achteraf gezien was het verstandiger geweest om de patiënt eerst op de HLIU op te nemen", zegt Radboudumc-bestuursvoorzitter Bertine Lahuis.
NIJMEGEN (ANP) - De wekenlange quarantaine van twaalf Radboudumc-medewerkers omdat zij mogelijk waren blootgesteld aan het hantavirus, was vermijdbaar. Dat concludeert een onderzoeksteam in een rapport dat het ziekenhuis vrijdag publiceerde.
Op 7 mei nam het Nijmeegse ziekenhuis een patiënt op die als passagier op het cruiseschip Hondius besmet was geraakt met het Andes-hantavirus. Die zou aanvankelijk worden behandeld op een High Level Isolation Unit (HLIU), een speciale afdeling voor besmettelijke infectieziekten, maar werd toch opgevangen op een verpleegafdeling. Dat kwam door tijdsdruk, beperkte kennis, druk vanuit een overleg van deskundigen en om niet de indruk te wekken dat een reguliere afdeling onveilig was, zeggen de onderzoekers. Ze noemen het "een bijzondere samenloop van afzonderlijke gebeurtenissen en omstandigheden".
"De uitkomsten van het onderzoek zijn helder: better safe than sorry. Achteraf gezien was het verstandiger geweest om de patiënt eerst op de HLIU op te nemen", zegt Radboudumc-bestuursvoorzitter Bertine Lahuis.
In 1995, US film-maker Tamra Davis travelled to Australia to capture the one-off Summersault tour on her camcorder. Thirty years on she has made The Best Summer, an intimate snapshot of an era that can never be repeated
There are only a few shots in Tamra Davis’ documentary The Best Summer that were filmed this century. They’re the very first ones: shaky footage of a clattering box of videotapes being loaded hurriedly into a car boot as Davis evacuated her home in Malibu during the Palisades fires last year. Almost everything else in the film was in that box, forgotten for nearly three decades, a time capsule of a one-off tour of Australia and Asia featuring some of the most influential musicians of the 80s and 90s.
Summersault, pulled together by twentysomething promoter and future Modular Records founder Steve “Pav” Pavlovic, brought Sonic Youth, Pavement, the Beastie Boys, Bikini Kill, Beck and more to five Australian cities over new year’s 1995/96. It had started as Pav booking a Beasties tour that snowballed as the bands – many of them close friends – liked the sound of a break down under.
Continue reading...