| yeah keeping it vague makes sense to protect the place if it's still online but the whole thing doesn't really make sense? The timelines mentioned are weird - he spoke to them before they built it? Or after? It's not that clear, he mentions they mentioned watching a video. > The entire application was a single HTML file with all JavaScript, CSS, and structure written inline. This is not my experience of how agents tend to build at all. I often _ask_ them to do that, but their tendency is to use a lot of files and structure > They even added a feature to record conversations during appointments So they have the front-desk laptop in the doctor's room? Or they were recording conversations anyway and now they for feed them into the system afterwards? > All "access control" logic lived in the JavaScript on the client side, meaning the data was literally one curl command away from anyone who looked. Also definitely not the normal way an agent would build something - security flaws yes, but this sounds more like someone who just learnt coding or the most upvoted post of all time on r/programmerhorror, not really AI. Overall I'm skeptical of the claims made in this article until I see stronger evidence (not that I'm supporting using slop for a medical system in general). |
> Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
Then this claim seems a bit too much, since what could have gone more wrong is malicious actors discovering it, right? Did they?
Maybe I have trouble believing that a medical professional could be that careless and naive in such a way, but anything could happen.
I guess another thought is... If they built it why would they share the URL to the author? Was author like "Ooh cool, let me check that out", and they just gave the url without auth? Because if it worked as it was supposed to it should have just shown a login screen right? That's the weirdest part to me, I suppose.