A hacking group called “The Com” released personal information of hundreds of federal agents, including 680 DHS employees, 190 Justice Department officials, and 170 FBI employees[1]. The hack revealed names, office locations, and home addresses of agents.
The incident occurs amid heightened tensions, with ICE claiming a dramatic rise in assaults against officers, though these statistics are disputed. Colorado Public Radio found only a 25% increase in assaults rather than the administration’s claimed “1000% increase”[2].
The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Kristi Noem promised prosecutions against those who dox ICE agents in July 2025, but three months later no charges have been filed[2:1]. This contrasts with California, where prosecutors have charged three activists for allegedly following and broadcasting an ICE agent’s home address[2:2].
The hack comes as the Trump administration has pushed tech companies to remove ICE-tracking apps, with both Meta and Apple recently complying with requests to take down such tools[2:3].
Yeah it can’t read spreadsheets.
They, uh. They bury that part in the very fine print.
Why are so many people having issues with ChatGPT? It reads my spreadsheets just fine!
Seems like maybe the AI should say it couldn’t open the file instead of just making shit up.
Ah, you just don’t understand transformative technology! That’s why all the smart people are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into the fire pit! They get it!
Also, you shouldn’t trust it. They DO make that clear.
Transformative! A new future! Robots that crank out money!
It’s so weird as well how they carefully designed these things to just do random shit and lie about it. The technology would be so much better if it actually acknowledged limitations and said sorry I can’t do that. I understand why they did it, because then the hype wouldn’t be nearly as big, as it would be obvious to everyone these things are mostly useless. But for it to be so confidently incorrect or just make up random shit and hope you don’t notice, is so bad.
Just the other day my co-worker was working on some CSS stuff. Earlier he had asked me how to access that function in the tool he was working with. I told him be careful, this is technical and pretty hard. But if you need help just let me know. So a few days later he came to me, said he got it all figured out, there was just two little issues.
First issue was he blew up a thumbnail photo to be pretty huge and didn’t like how it was all blurry and ugly. I told him that’s what happens if you scale up a raster image. He said well why don’t we use SVG then? That always scales without issues. I blinked as I didn’t know he knew what SVG files were. I tried to explain SVG is just a file format (and a pretty complex one at that), you can put a raster image in an SVG image, but that won’t solve anything. The key difference is raster versus vector, raster won’t scale without quality loss, vector will (to some degree at least). I said we use vector where possible (and not just in SVG format), but photos are pretty much by definition raster so that won’t work. I don’t think he understood a word I said, but we moved on to the second issue.
Second issue was this really weird bug where the entire page would get messed up. Something I never saw before so I asked to take a look at his code. This code was wild, weird comments all over the place. Stuff with very obvious errors, only to be then corrected a hundred lines further down. Or stuff that was pointless, redundant or nonsensical. And the stuff that was “correct” was only correct in terms that it was valid code. It was things that one should never ever do and would only “work” in a very specific situation (eg my coworkers browser, screen and page combination).
My AI bullshit detector was going off as I stared at the code in disbelief. I asked who wrote the code, he said he did. So I asked how he got to this point as I thought he didn’t know any code. He said he used a combination of tutorials on the internet and his own creativity. After a bit of prodding about specifics he couldn’t answer I said: This code looks like it was written by an AI, is that true? He broke down and said yes it was all done by AI. He acted like I was the asshole for calling him out on it and he simply didn’t have the time to dive into these things and actually learn stuff. So he used the AI to get it done fast. I was going to say if he didn’t have enough time, he should have focused on a lot of stuff he was supposed to do and hadn’t finished instead of messing around with this nonsense. But I thought better of it and instead said the AI generated total bullshit and in contrast to what the marketing says AI can’t actually code for shit. So I offered to write the code for him if he explained what he wanted to do. Half of his ideas were plain bad ideas and some actually illegal as they would not meet legal usability requirements. But I understood the gist of what he wanted and took an hour to write his code for him. I later heard he took what I did over to marketing and told people there it was his “design”.
People slobbing the AI knob are so fucking annoying. And the AI feeds into this with their flattering language, making these idiots think they can actually do something. Braindead all of them…
TL;DR: positive experience using AI code gen. Downvote button is that way (clients may vary) if that’s all someone cares about before voting ---->
I’ve definitely reviewed code and had to tell people not to use AI because A) depending on what proprietary files or information they sent to the AI it was literally illegal and B) it was garbage code with random bits of oddness that the developer couldn’t explain.
That said, there’s a bit of a skill issue here.
I’ve been experimenting with generated code at work (because it’s literally my job to enable my team in this way) and without knowing the code base at all but understanding a series of endpoints that needed to be called, I spent about 6 hours researching and documenting all the service calls and schemas, explaining the command line options I needed and how they would function. (Existing standards and docs are inherited garbage—I’m sure you know how it is.)
Anyway I put in a bunch of work explaining what needed to be done and how to do it and just let Cline and Claude cook. Ten minutes later I had working code and a battery of unit tests to validate it was correct. I caught a couple of logic errors reviewing the generated code and rejected it with an explanation of what it had done wrong. It tried a second time and nailed it.
It retrieves an auth token, parses and validates minimum data in a spreadsheet, checks to see if the users are okay to overwrite their login information, then submits updates to the account, waits/polls another system that has to ingest that update through Kafka, validates the ingestion was successful, and finally creates/overwrites a login for the user. Various commands line options execute subsets of that. It logs every API call inbound and out, logs the success of each line item or where it failed, and also lets you pass in a filter file to only process some of the lines of the spreadsheet.
It also wrote about 60 unit tests which did identify a bug or two and it went back and fixed them on its own. In an ecosystem I’m only beginning to learn and in a language I can’t write. I am a well-seasoned SSE/Tech Lead, though, so it’s not like I don’t know what I’m doing.
And I can say there were some edge cases in the data that tested almost every failure mode. One account couldn’t be overwritten, a couple were missing required fields, the Kafka consumer fucked up and we had to help that team troubleshoot. The script was rock solid.
In the right hands, using the right tools, AI can be a good coding partner. It’s also the best / most expensive coding model (that I’m aware of) and the AI ate up about $15 in API costs. Which us a bargain compared to what they would’ve paid me to write it.
It’s honestly impressive it said it didn’t open the CSV. In my experience it will: A: Say it got the numbers from the CSV. B: Admit the numbers are wrong, then say “here are the correct numbers.” (Still hadn’t looked at the file) Depending on the prompt phrasing.