Does an AI summary hold up in court? Or would you still need to review a transcript or recording anyway?
You can store low quality audio cheaply on cold storage so I suspect that's the real legal record if it got that far.
Readit Newscube00 commented on 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend thedailyadda.com/95-of-co... · Posted by u/speckx
cube00 commented on 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend thedailyadda.com/95-of-co... · Posted by u/speckx
> It's not going to replace anyone's job.
Is it not, in the scenario you are describing? You are saying the agents are free now to do higher-value work. Why were there not enough agents before, especially if higher-value work was not done?
It's such a useless platitude. The "higher value work" is answer more calls so we can have less staff on queue.
cube00 commented on 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend thedailyadda.com/95-of-co... · Posted by u/speckx
At work we've tried AI summaries for meetings, but we spent so much time fixing those summaries that we started writing our own again.
Is there some training you applied or something specific to your use case that makes it work for you?
Unless a case goes down the legal road, nobody is ever bothering to read old call summaries in a giant call center.
When was the last time you called a large company and the person answering was already across all the past history without you giving them a case number first?
cube00 commented on AGENTS.md – Open format for guiding coding agents agents.md/... · Posted by u/ghuntley
Why this even required..
It makes people feel like they're in control of the text prediction agent when actually it'll only follow this some of the time.
1. I tell Copilot until I'm blue in the face that the project must build.
2. Copilot assures me it has fixed the build errors it created.
3. Still get build errors
4. Run out of tokens so I come back next month and repeat.
Deleted Comment
Not sure why it seems like a lie. Oversights like this happen all the time.
It seems like a lie because they tried to hide this incident by deflecting to a PR fluff post first [1]
They only published a proper [2] disclosure post later once their hand was forced after the researcher's post hit the HN front page.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44954242
[2]: I use that term loosely as it seems to be AI written slop.
That post happened after the HN post?
They weren't published together. They managed to get the researchers to add CodeRabbit's talking points in after the fact, check out the blue text on the right hand side.
https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250819165333/202508192240...
Both articles were published today. It seems to me that the researchers and coderabbit agreed to publish on the same day. This is a common practice when the company decides to disclose at all (disclosure is not required unless customer data was leaked and there's evidence of that, they are choosing to disclose unnecessarily here).
When the security researchers praise the response, it's a good sign tbh.
They weren't published together.
The early version of the researcher's article didn't have the whole first section where they "appreciate CodeRabbit’s swift action after we reported this security vulnerability" and the subsequent CodeRabbit talking points.
Refer to the blue paragraphs on the right hand site at https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250819165333/202508192240...
Much like dubbing a video tape multiple times, it's going to get worse as you add more layers text predictors.