Depends on the vantage point. Have you worked in any regulated industries? I can see iTerm joining internal software ban lists because of its AI integration (even if it's off by default).
Security departments of these corps are constantly pleading with their staff to "please stop sharing corp data with LLMs, you're not allowed to do that", all the while staff feel under pressure to deliver faster, and reaching for whatever tools are available.
The temptation to use it will be irresistible to many, especially juniors/temps competing for limited positions and promotions.
From a regulated corp point of view, why would they risk it, and rely on individual staff conscience, knowledge, and ability to estimate risk? Better to neutralise the risk from the outset by banning use of the software. Plenty of other terminals where this can't be enabled at all by any over-excited staff.
If someone wants to use ChatGPT with their terminal it is not really much of a roadblock to use the LLM's web interface and copy/paste between that and the terminal.
I'd expect then that if the security department is worried about people obeying a "don't use unauthorized LLMs" policy to be blocking access at the network level.
Following that logic, regulated industries would be going after anything resembling Microsoft Office with a flamethrower. It would be product suicide for any piece of software, like e.g. Microsoft Office or Microsoft Windows, to offer even optional AI capabilities.
Yes, and the Fortune 500 et al. are all telling Microsoft that they will be forced to do anything required to protect their businesses, including ceasing all business with Microsoft.
Microsoft needs to tell their shareholders to fuck off and quit backseat driving, but Satya Nadella is just yet another CEO who trades profits today for the end of the company tomorrow.
"Junior developer at <big-corp/gov-org> exposed and then deleted all customer/citizen's data after enabling AI integration in popular IT tool 'iTerm', and allowing AI to 'Run commands automatically' on the <big-corp/gov-org> systems."
And we'll do it to ourselves with our race to the bottom - clueless middle managers pushing for "more performance" and creating zero sum competition environments. If I were a junior dev today, I'd feel like I need to enable AI everywhere to compete and survive.
I judge the headline as clickbait as well, and skipped reading it because of it.
Sounds like I made the right decision based on other comments.
It (probably) could've easily said, in say one to ten words, what actually happened, in the headline, so that I could decide whether I wanted to read into the details or whether it didn't interest me at all.
With the headline being "something happened" and you'll have to read multiple paragraphs before you find out anything at all, I'm immediately put off. I feel like my time is being wasted.
Entice me by describing an interesting outcome in the headline, that I want to read more about, or inform me, in the headline, that it's not an article for me.
Attempting to artificially drive more traffic and eyeballs to an article, by withholding details in the headline of what it is about, is the definition of clickbait in my book.
Security departments of these corps are constantly pleading with their staff to "please stop sharing corp data with LLMs, you're not allowed to do that", all the while staff feel under pressure to deliver faster, and reaching for whatever tools are available.
The temptation to use it will be irresistible to many, especially juniors/temps competing for limited positions and promotions.
From a regulated corp point of view, why would they risk it, and rely on individual staff conscience, knowledge, and ability to estimate risk? Better to neutralise the risk from the outset by banning use of the software. Plenty of other terminals where this can't be enabled at all by any over-excited staff.