661–670 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and murder is illegal but people still get got. "Some people will bypass it" is not a valid reason to not have a rule.
The rule in this case would be more like "you need to show a police history with proof you've never committed murder before you're allowed to enter the supermarket".
This will mean the next generation will grow up with open source AI. High schools and junior colleges offering computer courses will have to give their students different coding tools than the industry standard.
Good, the less capable they are, the more students will actually have to learn.
Kids don't go to gym class to determine who can stack crates most effectively with a forklift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does removing access to Clause equate to dehumanizing children?
It's not just Claude. It's being cut off from every part of society except a carefully curated "child ghetto". In which you stay until the day you turn 18. At which point you're shoved out into the outside world. Possibly cut off from all your existing contacts, in fact, since now you're an "adult" and it's presumed dangerous for you to interact with a "child" in any noninstitutional way. Yes, most of society is onli…
I think there's an analogy to physical roads there. Most of society is connecting by roads and adults driving cars, but that doesn't prevent children from participating in the things between the driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You may trust them with your money, but does not equate to trusting them with any other PII. This doesn't really make any sense and it feels like it's just an attempt to be contrarian. Banks by law require substantial PII in order to even do business with you.
> it feels like it's just an attempt to be contrarian. You feel like it's an attempt to be contrarian not to inform your bank about everything that you do? Society has reached a dangerous point.
How much of that is true. Did anthropic put it in a legally binding document? not just a website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the word fuck isn't offensive, there's absolutely no reason to use it.
Yet every culture across the globe has and has always had swearing, profanity, taboo words, fart jokes, and gate keepers decrying such things. While the reasons may elude, the ubiquity speaks to something foundational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, except these kinds of fears related to big tech/surveillance end up being true more often than not. Unsurprising given the profit incentives and the total lack of ethics in the industry. 10+ years ago you were considered a lunatic if you told people that putting internet-connected cameras and microphones everywhere is a bad idea because their TV would be used to spy on them, that their cameras would be accessed…
> more often than not Any data on that? Because to me it sounds like “because they are sometimes true, we should assume they are always true” But I’m open to data.
The only anecdata I can give is "look around you", how all major (and many smaller) companies are implementing invasive spying tech into their products, harvesting our personal information, selling it, or abusing it any way they can. They sell the products as one thing then shaft their customers and change the terms overnight at their earliest convenience.
What you call "a conspiracy theory" is just "following clear market incentives". There's a clear motive for doing everything with a clear track record of doing so in the past.
If someone made a derivative financial product that roughly equated to the prediction "Big tech will use any means to expand their access, to invade and abuse our privacy, and generally be willing to do anything in pursuit of profit" I would be willing to invest my life savings into it.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202603/spains-aepd-fines-yot...