Slashdot

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Guardian: Google's search feature AI Overviews cites YouTube more than any medical website when answering queries about health conditions, according to research that raises fresh questions about a tool seen by 2 billion people each month. The company has said its AI summaries, which appear at the top of search results and use generative AI to answer questions from users, are "reliable" and cite reputable medical sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Mayo Clinic. However, a study that analysed responses to more than 50,000 health queries, captured using Google searches from Berlin, found the top cited source was YouTube. The video-sharing platform is the world's second most visited website, after Google itself, and is owned by Google. Researchers at SE Ranking, a search engine optimisation platform, found YouTube made up 4.43% of all AI Overview citations. No hospital network, government health portal, medical association or academic institution came close to that number, they said. "This matters because YouTube is not a medical publisher," the researchers wrote. "It is a general-purpose video platform...." In one case that experts said was "dangerous" and "alarming", Google provided bogus information about crucial liver function tests that could have left people with serious liver disease wrongly thinking they were healthy. The company later removed AI Overviews for some but not all medical searches... Hannah van Kolfschooten, a researcher specialising in AI, health and law at the University of Basel who was not involved with the research, said: "This study provides empirical evidence that the risks posed by AI Overviews for health are structural, not anecdotal. It becomes difficult for Google to argue that misleading or harmful health outputs are rare cases. "Instead, the findings show that these risks are embedded in the way AI Overviews are designed. In particular, the heavy reliance on YouTube rather than on public health authorities or medical institutions suggests that visibility and popularity, rather than medical reliability, is the central driver for health knowledge."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Trend Micro's Zero Day Initiative sponsored its third annual Pwn2Own Automotive competition in Tokyo this week, receiving 73 entries, the most ever for a Pwn2Own event. "Under Pwn2Own rules, all disclosed vulnerabilities are reported to affected vendors through ZDI," reports Help Net Security, "with public disclosure delayed to allow time for patches." Infotainment platforms from Tesla, Sony, and Alpine were among the systems compromised during demonstrations. Researchers achieved code execution using techniques that included buffer overflows, information leaks, and logic flaws. One Tesla infotainment unit was compromised through a USB-based attack, resulting in root-level access. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure also received significant attention. Teams successfully demonstrated exploits against chargers from Autel, Phoenix Contact, ChargePoint, Grizzl-E, Alpitronic, and EMPORIA. Several attacks involved chaining multiple vulnerabilities to manipulate charging behavior or execute code on the device. These demonstrations highlighted how charging stations operate as network-connected systems with direct interaction with vehicles. There's video recaps on the ZDI YouTube channel — apparently the Fuzzware.io researchers "were able to take over a Phoenix Contact EV charger over bluetooth." Three researchers also exploited the Alpitronic's HYC50 fast-charging with a classic TOCTOU bug, according to the event's site, "and installed a playable version of Doom to boot." They earned $20,000 — part of $1,047,000 USD was awarded during the three-day event. More coverage from SecurityWeek: The winner of the event, the Fuzzware.io team, earned a total of $215,500 for its exploits. The team received the highest individual reward: $60,000 for an Alpitronic HYC50 EV charger exploit delivered through the charging gun. ZDI described it as "the first public exploit of a supercharger".

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CIO magazine reports that "the push toward in-person work environments will make it more difficult for IT leaders to retain and recruit staff, some experts say." "In addition to resistance, there would also be the risk of talent turnover," [says Lawrence Wolfe, CTO at marketing firm Converge]... "The truth is, both physical and virtual collaboration provide tremendous value...." IT workers facing work-from-office mandates are two to three times more likely than their counterparts to look for new jobs, according to Metaintro, a search engine that tracks millions of jobs. IT leaders hiring new employees may also face significant headwinds, with it taking 40% to 50% longer to fill in-person roles than remote jobs, according to Metaintro. "Some of the challenges CIOs face include losing top-tier talent, limiting the pool of candidates available for hire, and damaging company culture, with a team filled with resentment," says Lacey Kaelani, CEO and cofounder at Metaintro... There are several downsides for IT leaders to in-person work mandates, [adds Lena McDearmid, founder and CEO of culture and leadership advisory firm Wryver], as orders to commute to an office can feel arbitrary or rooted in control rather than in value creation. "That erodes trust quickly, particularly in IT teams that proved they could deliver remotely for years," she adds. The mandates can also create new friction for IT leaders by requiring them to deal with morale issues, manage exceptions, and spend time enforcing policy instead of leading strategy, she says. "There's also a real risk of losing experienced, high-performing talent who have options and are unwilling to trade autonomy for proximity without a clear reason," McDearmid adds. "When companies mandate daily commutes without a clear rationale, they often narrow their talent pool and increase attrition, particularly among people who know they can work effectively elsewhere." McDearmid has seen teams "sitting next to each other" who collaborate poorly "because decisions are unclear or leaders equate visibility with progress... Collaboration doesn't automatically improve just because people share a building." And Rebecca Wettemann, CEO at IT analyst firm Valoir, warns of return-to-office mandates "being used as a Band-Aid for poor management. When IT professionals feel they're being evaluated based on badge swipes, not real accomplishments, they will either act accordingly or look to work elsewhere." Thanks to Slashdot reader snydeq for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.