You only get the capability in copilot to query the licensing if you have CoPilot E4 or an F3 with the monthly add on or attained a copilot ISV but then you have a limited entitlement linked to the base agreement and you need to purchase additional seats but they are of a different tier which need to be upgraded etc etc etc
I get the intent, but surely after the lessons of similar messaging to prepare for potential COVID lockdowns causing people to go nuts and buy every toilet roll and canned food in every store, they need to think of a better approach.
This simply came out of me challenging the assertion in a comment higher up stating that a company still needed a CEO/person to be held liable for what the LLM could do. I didn’t think it was that black and white.
See now this is interesting. I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions and what individuals can be held liable for. As long as a company using this “CEO ai can demonstrate reasonable frameworks were in place around the decisions it was acting upon, such as “hmm maybe we won’t eat the first born child of every customer or let’s not spend the companies full cash reserves on crack”, I think there are protections from liability.
I believe the corporation itself is treated as a distinct legal entity for litigation purposes and shields officers of the company unless there are specific circumstances around any individual. I don’t think there is a legal requirement for a corporation to have a CEO. I think this just further confirms the idea of the CEO “role” being fully automated to be more than viable and a genuine costs savings. Much lower risk than relying on AI to replace skilled technical functions.
Someone with more corporate legal knowledge could provide further insight.
I have been on the cloud vendor side forced into using these crappy Microsoft protection tools because of the daft Azure compliance framework. Customers would ask for your score on this and your score was impacted by how many of these very expensive services you had enabled. THEY DID NOT WORK! We had an independent security testing org prove that uploaded malware was half flagged by defender for storage but then no subsequent downstream events were triggered. Microsoft simply said “known issue and will be fixed at some point”. Un-fucking-believable. Azure compliance framework is 100% an Azure services upsell versus a genuine security focus initiative.
I see no reason US based AI companies would not carry the same risk especially with the well documented cases of groups like the NSA openly asking US technology companies to provide back doors.
Nah. Just a bitter old bastard who spent 20+ years dealing with Microsoft sales people on their daft entitlements system.
You only get the capability in copilot to query the licensing if you have CoPilot E4 or an F3 with the monthly add on or attained a copilot ISV but then you have a limited entitlement linked to the base agreement and you need to purchase additional seats but they are of a different tier which need to be upgraded etc etc etc
Never skip penis day.
I get the intent, but surely after the lessons of similar messaging to prepare for potential COVID lockdowns causing people to go nuts and buy every toilet roll and canned food in every store, they need to think of a better approach.
¿Por qué no los dos?
Jesus Malverde
Better Call Stal.
“So what you are saying is any Tom,Dick, or Harry that comes to the door gets a turn?”
This comment aims to illuminate the complexities of being seen as a sesquipedalian. Let’s delve dee .. (token limit reached)
You sound suspiciously edible Ricky Rigatoni. Was your neighbour named something like Ronny Ramen or similar?
Washer dryer combo.
Queso Cristo for the Spanish speakers
This simply came out of me challenging the assertion in a comment higher up stating that a company still needed a CEO/person to be held liable for what the LLM could do. I didn’t think it was that black and white.
See now this is interesting. I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions and what individuals can be held liable for. As long as a company using this “CEO ai can demonstrate reasonable frameworks were in place around the decisions it was acting upon, such as “hmm maybe we won’t eat the first born child of every customer or let’s not spend the companies full cash reserves on crack”, I think there are protections from liability.
I believe the corporation itself is treated as a distinct legal entity for litigation purposes and shields officers of the company unless there are specific circumstances around any individual. I don’t think there is a legal requirement for a corporation to have a CEO. I think this just further confirms the idea of the CEO “role” being fully automated to be more than viable and a genuine costs savings. Much lower risk than relying on AI to replace skilled technical functions.
Someone with more corporate legal knowledge could provide further insight.
I have been on the cloud vendor side forced into using these crappy Microsoft protection tools because of the daft Azure compliance framework. Customers would ask for your score on this and your score was impacted by how many of these very expensive services you had enabled. THEY DID NOT WORK! We had an independent security testing org prove that uploaded malware was half flagged by defender for storage but then no subsequent downstream events were triggered. Microsoft simply said “known issue and will be fixed at some point”. Un-fucking-believable. Azure compliance framework is 100% an Azure services upsell versus a genuine security focus initiative.
Beat me to it! I was going to say we should refer to propaganda material as Bernays Sources.
I see no reason US based AI companies would not carry the same risk especially with the well documented cases of groups like the NSA openly asking US technology companies to provide back doors.
You hit the nail on the head.
Translating for the Linux and Mac folk
“run”
“suit-o run”