151–160 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What will you use instead? I’m finding Claude the best experience since ChatGPT 5 is so slow and not any better answers than 4.
https://grok.com
I think there is amazing signal inside the chat logs. Every idea or decision taken can be analyzed in hindsight 20 messages later, or days later. Eventually a feedback signal or outcome lands back in the chat logs. That is real world idea validation. Considering the hundreds of millions of users and their diverse tasks that collect across time - this is probably the most efficient way to improve AI. I coined it the h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subve…
Oh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, with…
The post you were replying to simply said the behavior of this administration made them care more about this issue, not that they trusted companies more than the government. That statement is not even implied in anyway in the comment you responded to?
The fact is whereas in the past it would be expected that the government could regulate the brutal and illegal overreaches of private companies, giving military rank to private companies execs makes that even less likely. The original comment is alluding to a simpler point: A government that gives blank checks to private companies in military and security matters is much worse than one that doesn't.
How would they not "share information with third parties". You need to sift through the data to make it even remotely useful for "training". You absolutely need to share it with either Amazon (for Mechanical Turk) or with Scale AI. I am wondering how would you use a chat transcript for training? Unless it is massive, possibly private codebases that are constantly getting piped into Claude Code right now. In that case…
But more importantly (to me) is storing 5 years worth of other company's IP. That just seems wildly risky for all parties unless I really don't understand how Claude Code works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts…
Companies all seem to turn against their users whenever they have revenue/earnings trouble.
The solution is to break up monopolies....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To consent to sharing your data for training Docusign AI models, your organization (as the account owner) must first agree to share data through your Docusign service agreement. After providing consent, the setting will be turned on by default. [1] [1]: https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&...
So you state that as a fact based on the ToS of an unrelated company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why single out user data specifically? Most of the data Anthropic and co train on was just scooped up from wherever with zero consent, not even the courtesy of a buried TOS clause, and their users were always implicitly fine with that. Forgive me for not having much sympathy when the users end up reaping what they've sown.
Training on private user interactions is a privacy violation; training on public, published texts is (some argue) an intellectual property violation. They're very different kinds of moral rights.
What a surprise, a big corp collected large amount of personal data under some promises, and now reveals actually they will exploit it in completely unrelated manner.
The are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts…
That doesn't matter when their revenue per user is as high as it is.
They're at $5B ARR and rapidly growing.
TBH I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to change their mind on this, because I find it incredibly frustrating to know that current gen agentic coding systems are incapable of actually learning anything from their interactions with me - especially when they make the same stupid mistakes over and over.
Learning metric won’t be you, it will be some global shitty metric that will make the service mediocre with time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's cute people believe companies that trained their models with every single book and online page ever written without consents from authors (and often against the explicit request of the author without any opt-out) won't do a rugg-pull and do it also to all the chats they have aquired...
Yeah people are gullible these days. We need another full 2008 crash that hurts bad before people wake up for a bit before becomming like this again.
AI companies will get bailed out like the auto industry was - they won't be hurt at all.