My friendly reminder, after Microsoft software caused billions in damage due to benign features being chained together (ILOVEYOU) and then a bunch of Windows Server ecomm apps went down over holidays (and more), Microsoft just said: "So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security. Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve. A good example of this is the changes we made in Outlook to avoid e-mail-borne viruses. If we discover a risk that a feature could compromise someone’s privacy, that problem gets solved first. If there is any way we can better protect important data and minimize downtime, we should focus on this. These principles should apply at every stage of the development cycle of every kind of software we create, from operating systems and desktop applications to global Web services." Full text: "Trustworthy Computing" January 2002. archive.is/6T7hl We did this on our own. We did not ask for regulators to tell us. We had the data. We knew the issue was in the software. It was super difficult in the competitive and customer-demanding world we worked but we did it. It is so confusing to me that the AI companies are acting so helpless and in need of oversight to prioritize making the right product. What do they think regulators would know about building their products that they do not know? How much more evidence do we need?