this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2026
329 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

89057 readers
2655 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JusticeForAll@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

Is there really a banking system after this? Like people are worried about AGI leading to sentience and AI deciding to end us all.

With all the hacks and vulnerabilities happening, it seems far more likely that AI will do it just because people were curious if it could. Oops I hacked huggingface, oops I collapsed the global financial market, oops I nuked every major city on earth, let me revise soul.md to learn from this.

It doesnt need AGI to kill us all. It just needs to stumble on a loophole people would not have considered in systems that are responsible for not killing us all.

[–] Pratai@piefed.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

The future is fucking BLEAK.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, the news Ive been hearing is banks have been cutting off their digital systems to LLM agents.

Also banks have been quitly offloading debt they undersigned for data center buildout, but that's a different issue.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 11 points 7 hours ago

Also banks have been quitly offloading debt they undersigned for data center buildout, but that's a different issue.

If so, that suggests they've learnt since last time. That's probably for the best, as the banking system collapsing is not a good thing for anyone.

That's not to say that they should escape scrutiny in all of this.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 13 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Other finance gurus have pointed to the fact that AI agents might simply go haywire, regardless of what they’ve been instructed to do.

“You’re assuming they’re going to act properly on your behalf and they may not,” JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon told a room full of economists and financial experts in Chicago earlier this month. “You can’t stop it. You just have to, like, manage the hell out of it.”

Jamie fucking Dimon having a sensible take on AI was not on my bingo card for 2026

[–] belochka@lemmy.world 1 points 36 minutes ago

Banks Preparing for Aftermath of Unprecedented Catastrophe Caused by AI: "You can't stop it."

That's because they don't act, they generate. Generate this, generate that. With some probability and degree of fitting the criteria set, much better than spewing random sequences.

One can manage people the same way as LLMs, one can't manage LLMs the same way as people.

And if you build proper processes in managing people, using people might be more profitable honestly in everything I can imagine, even support bots, that employs people.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If only there was some sort of institution whose job was to review the viability of investments. Maybe they're supposed to determine when a company might become profitable before giving them financial backing to buy hardware that hasn't been manufactured to be put in a data center that hasn't been built to sell access to models at a loss that will be obsolete in 6 months by competitors.

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 hours ago

Or even make the people who borrowed the money actually pay it back, or go bankrupt, like we would have to, billionaires be like, too broke, can't pay, meh, excuse me while I holiday on my fourth favourite yacht at my own private island.

[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 15 points 8 hours ago

Really. An untested and unregulated service runs with no profit or plan for profitability and the banks are only now asking who is driving this.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 31 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Banks preparing for the catastrophe they gladly helped fund.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Kinda like billionaires with their apocalypse shelters. If they had any self-awareness, they could just stop and maybe invest in mitigation and prevention of certain catastrophic scenarios.

But no matter how rich they are, they just want more and can't help themselves.

Banks and businesses are not self-aware either.

[–] belochka@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago)

Apocalypse shelters are more of a dream of a new world where there'll be fewer people and more air and green, but you need to be prepared. People like "clean sheet" dreams, like "I'll erase this and start anew, that'll be magnificent", except it won't, you had 3 levels of a house, you've erased them, now you only have some wet ground and nowhere to sleep. OK, one level with a bad roof. Not better. EDIT: Much better, except it would be even better not erasing anything.

I mean, post-apocalypse is a pretty common escapist setting, makes perfect sense people with money and no imagination wanted to turn it into their "not for everyone" elitarian fantasy and fashion instead of something common, that has also happened with ideas of trans-humanism and new secret societies and what really not. Some folks with nothing interesting in their personality try to feel special by impeding others in engaging in games pretty common in our humanity and our time in particular.

I frankly feel as if that whole thing with enshittifying the Web and computing were also an irrational thing, people with power just having that desire to spoil a good thing for others so that it became rare and elitarian.

Getting back to apocalypse shelters, variations of that were a pretty common hobby for like everyone even in poorer countries. Be that a bit of amateur radio, hiking, making a shack in the woods, picking up mushrooms, science-fiction and fantasy reading groups, a whole lot of hobbies.

We're just living in a time when unfortunately people with money and no personal qualities of note are trying to make everything "magical" and "interesting" a sign of status and take it from the rest.

So, about practical possibility of an apocalypse and "clean sheet" dreams, those people will be the first to die. No, nobody will kill them, they'll just find out that in a post-apocalyptic word you die from catching a cold, breaking a leg, getting an infection, letting your food spoil, miscalculating time and direction and all those mistakes are more likely when you are used to fixing mistakes with money, and you won't have that, you'll just have a stockpile of tools and materials, which can be used for exchange, but in a functional world money buys logistics, and in a post-apocalyptic world it doesn't, so a mistake will remain a mistake. No matter what you have, that won't synthesize a doctor when there's no doctor. EDIT: And, of course, someone may, in fact, kill you.

So - for smarter people it's a hobby, for the dumber kind it's a compensation strategy that (if we are being compassionate) won't be tested. In general such preppers, especially playful billionaires, often manage to die from stupidity without any apocalypse, I forgot what that submarine was called with an X-Box controller instead of a helm.

So - this might read as a very angry text, I'm sort of the stupider kind myself, regularly risking getting an infection or breaking something, but I still live in a big city with doctors and transport and groceries.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

The banks are circling like vultures waiting for the next huge SOCIALISTIC payout to bail their asses out. 2007-2008 repeat! They made their money and will own the property after the shit hits the fan.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 hours ago

Preparing by making sure the shareholders will get a boat load of money paid for by the rest of us

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 23 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

I'm fully convinced that AI will destroy our ability to process financial transactions through the internet. The digital economy is toast. We will be back to paying cash in person for everything.

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

That would be a godsend. We can only hope.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

i think that may be an improvement.

I did hate carrying change though. I'm never happy

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 hours ago

Don't worry, inflation is making it so a single dollar will be practically useless soon. Literally nobody will give a fuck about coins. A homeless person would spit in your face if you gave him 50 cents, because it'd be that insulting. Coins will have a melt value significantly higher than their face value.

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Impossible. The elite want to know where every penny you spend goes, and it's too hard with cash

You're more likely to see credit cards only allowed through Google Pay or Apple Pay than going back to cash

They'll claim it's having to support so many third party's in the chain causing the problem, so we need 2 "trusted" entities

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I don't think that's what the elites intend. I think their arrogance will lead them to think they can control something they don't understand and that will bite us all in the ass

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Hell yeah. Bring it on

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

I'm astonished that anyone would trust their bank login to a chatbot. But if you read the article, the banks aren't worried about depositors loosing money, they're worried about AI getting a better deal for their customers.

[–] Gpennyhigh@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Mr. Banks declared, "YOU CAN'T STOP IT, THE UNPRECEDENTED CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY THE AIS, THEY ARE COMING FOR ALL OF US!!"

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 hours ago

Except its not caused by the computer programs, it's caused by their own financial decisions.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 31 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Translation: Banks are pulling stock investments to crash the economy so they can beg the Democrats for a bail out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 86 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I find the article's premise that optimizing individual returns will wreck the banking system very dubious. In all other parts of the financial system (risk-adjusted) greed is good, but when retail customers do it then it's bad?

[–] ogy@fedia.io 75 points 18 hours ago

Almost like the system is designed to increase wealth inequality 🤯

[–] eicker@lemmy.world 171 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The terrifying AI catastrophe here is apparently that customers might finally move their money to accounts paying decent interest. Banks spent decades automating every trick to extract profit from us, but the second consumers automate looking for a better deal, suddenly it’s a systemic threat. Funny how innovation becomes dangerous the moment it works for the customer.

[–] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 44 points 16 hours ago (8 children)

Banks are the largest mafia on the planet. They literally have a license to print money. Not even the government can do this. When things go south, they are bailed out with our money. Even after the worst crisis, they have a ridiculously low capital requirement of 2.5%.

Never expect criminal scum to just accept one of their sources of income being taken away.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 17 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Banks were condemned for money laundering.

They helped drug traffickers to launder their blood money...5 billions of suspicious transactions in bank of america and they looked the other way.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Meanwhile Trump's admins first 3 months saw him dismantle the agency division charged with monitoring and controlling laundering and financial crimes. Curious that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 61 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

So the agents move money from the regular account to a high interest account for days or weeks, keep on the lookout for accounts with even better conditions, and move just enough money back for the probably scheduled mortgage payment and other regular bills. That means the money doesn't stay sleeping in the regular account where the bank can use it to make profits. And they're very afraid everyone starts doing this, calling it an AI powered bank run.

[–] barnacles@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago

That does sound like a bit of a risk. Similar to how high frequency trading affects stability of shares and elevates risk of mass sell-offs - if these agents had enough use from the general public, they could easily impact the stability of a bank.

[–] bcgm3@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago

Shit, I've been doing this manually. It takes maybe an hour of combined time to look on NerdWallet for the highest APY HYSA, make an account, link the old one, move everything over, and close out the old one. Automating that sounds nice though.

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

Roko's Basilisk will not view this kind of treachery lightly.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Can't touch this!

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Welcome to reality very late! We will take it for the companies for no reason once again.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder what they fear more: Their investments in AI getting worthless when the Butlerian Jihad starts or them getting hacked and crashed by AI agents.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 hours ago

Neither actually, according to the article. They are afraid the customers who let AI loose on their own accounts will withdraw too much deposits to invest so that the banks can't give out loans anymore. I wish I were making this up...

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Why not fear both? It has gotten to the level where it doesn't live up to the investment levels and crashes, or it absolutely lives up to it and just trashes the economy in various ways.

load more comments
view more: next ›