181–190 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CoT is (nearly) hidden with Opus 4.7, in that they get Haiku to summarize the CoT. It’s pretty useless now, so this type of info is now inaccessible to us mortals (unless you call sales).
What if you proxy through bifrost or similar?
> That includes gay people like me, who could hardly have admitted under our names to how we lived our lives for most of America’s history, as well as many other groups with minoritarian lifestyles While the points made are completely valid I want to point out that the statement of "Hey, by the way, first let me talk about my sexuality" lowers the quality of dialog a significant degree. 31 million people in America a…
Compare the state of transgender rights 10 years ago to the situation now, where a trans person can be literally arrested for going to the bathroom in the wrong state. Or abortion, which was legal everywhere five years ago but now has laws on the books in multiple states encouraging vigilantes to report violations for a cash reward. Supercharged AI making it easy to identify minorities at an industrial scale in the n…
Huh. I disabled search in a Claude incognito window and pasted in just the text (not the markdown links) from https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/30/zig-anti-ai/ and said "Guess the author". > Simon Willison. The tells are pretty unmistakable: the "(via Lobsters)" attribution style, the inline "(Update:...)" parenthetical correction, the heavy linking and blockquoting of sources, the focus on LLMs and AI tooling, and…
Opus 4.7 in incognito mode without web search gave up: “I can't identify either author with confidence — I don't recognize this specific exchange, and I'd rather tell you that than guess and risk attributing words to the wrong person. What I can offer are the clues the text itself gives: The two are colleagues at the same university, with offices in the same building and....”
In a new incognito conversation, I gave Opus the same prompt but this time let it search the web. After twenty-six web searches (according to its reasoning trace), it was able to identify me correctly by name. It seems to have used both the content and my writing style as clues. It correctly identified my colleague as British but didn’t come up with his name.
Hm, that’s a multinomial classification with a very high cardinality. It’s really weird it works. I’m sure it does as the author states, but for how many authors (out of the whole web) does this work?
Just a couple more things and you can accommodate some of your things being mistaken/wrong/uncertain too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unlikely. The way model distribution works is that the model retains a lossy representation of James Micken's writing. Very likely, it cannot repeat Micken's writing verbatim. Neither can it reason about the training cutoff in this manner. It's a lossy representation
I haven't been following it well but isn't part of the NYT lawsuit against OpenAI that it sometimes spits out NYT articles verbatim?
https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...
Well, feeding Opus 4.7 a bunch of Adam Back texts (which I human-removed his name from) and asking it if Satoshi Nakomoto could have written them results in Claude explaining to me why this is someone else in Nakomoto's circle who is not Satoshi himself. So one of two things are true: * Adam Back is not Satoshi Nakomoto - as he claims * Opus 4.7 is not sufficiently a dox-machine yet
Wow! It got me too. I'm way less famous than Kelsey Piper, but I showed it a snippet of a book I'm working on (not yet published), and it immediately guessed me: > Based on the writing style and content, this text is likely by Michael Lynch, who writes on his blog refactoringenglish.com (and previously mtlynch.io). > Several stylistic clues point to him: > - The "clean room" analogy applied to writing is consistent w…
Honest question, knowing it can write like you, are you tempted to use it to help you write that new book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> projections of what the world might look like when this happens I've done this a few times. A world with 0 privacy would definitely be safe (given benign governance), but also would likely be pretty boring. Crime would become a non-issue as everything about everyone being easily known/knowable by everyone else means the root of any given crime, some desire/need, could be brought to the fore and resolved before it b…
> given benign governance quite unrealistic imo, thus we (maybe and hopefully) needn't worry about the bland minority report future you're hypothesizing :)
All governments go bad eventually, so the ability to overthrow is critical to prosperity.
Government's are either overthrown internally (revolt, uprising) or by external parties (invasion). A worldwide everyone-knows-everything would prevent both.