431–440 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I’m more productive with it in certain aspects of my work as well. Does that make it a net positive for humanity? From the energy consumption impact on climate change alone I would say the answer is clearly no. And that’s before we even talk about the impact on the next generation’s job opportunities. And tons of other issues like how Big Tech is behaving.
Was coming down from the trees a net positive for humanity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most websites are replaced This is already happening. > Wait until smart glasses or watches with AI overtake cellphones Smartphones are crystalized perfection. It's such a peak design. The size, form factor, sensors, input/output modalities, and generalization are perfect. The reason companies are trying to supplant it is that they need to get out from under Google and Apple's control. It's not that anything is wro…
>Smartphones are crystalized perfection. Time will tell, but to me they feel like desktops did 20 years ago. The process of enshitification has turned simple tasks complicated and everyone wants a different, privacy destroying, frustrating to use "app", each of which has a slightly different UI paradigm, a mandatory subscription I've forgotten to cancel for two years straight, and a confusing name to remember. I now…
Claude assists me in my math research. The scenario that concerns me is that Claude learns unpublished research ideas from me as we chat and code. Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Clearly commercial accounts use AI to assist in developing intellectual product, and privacy is mandatory. The same can apply to individuals.
It has long been a problem in math research to distinguish between "no one has had this idea" and "one person has had this idea". This used to take months. With the internet and MathSciNet, ArXiv online it took many iterations of guessing keywords. Now, I've spent six months learning how to coax rare responses from AI. That's not everyone's use case.
What complicates this is AI's ability to generalize. My best paper, we imagined we were expressing in print what everyone was thinking, when we were in fact connecting the dots on an idea that was latent. This is an interesting paradox: People see you as most original when you're least original, but you're helping them think.
With the right prompts AI can also "connect the dots".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they leaked bank accounts numbers, or private keys - I would be worried. That has not happened in the past. About myself personally - my Name Surname is googleable, I'm on the open electoral register, so my address is not a secret, my company information is also open in the companies register, I have a a personal website I have put up willingly and share information about myself there. Training models on my data d…
So you are projecting sociopathy on those that choose to keep their lives more private than you? Like you said, basic personal details are essentially public knowledge anyway. Where do you draw the line personally on what should be private?
Boundaries - yes sure they exist. I don't have my photo albums open to the world. I don't share info about family and friends - I know people by default don't want to share information about them, and I try to respect that. Don't share anything on Facebook, where plenty share, for example.
At the same time, I find obstacles to data sharing codified in the UK law frustrating. With the UK NHS. 1) Can't email my GP to pass information back-and-forth - GP withholds their email contact; 2) MRI scan private hospital makes me jump 10 hops before sharing my data with me; 3) Blood tests scheduling can't tell me back that schedule for a date failed, apparently it's too much for them to have my email address on record; 4) Can't volunteer my data to benefit R&D in NHS. ("here are - my lab works reports, 100 GB of my DNA paid for by myself, my medical histories - take them all in, use them as you please...") In all cases vague mutterings of "data protection... GDPR..." have been relayed back as "reasons". I take it's mostly B/S. They could work around if they wanted to. But there is a kernel of truth - it's easier for them to not try share, so it's used as a cover leaf. (in the worst case - an alibi for laziness.)
I'm for having power to share, or not share, what I want. With Google - I do want them to know about myself and use that for my (and theirs) benefit. With the UK gov (trying to break encryption) - I don't want them to be able to read my WhatsApp-s. I detest UK gov for effectively forcing me (by forcing the online pharmacy) to take a photos of myself (face, figure) in order to buy online Wegovy earlier today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just did and it behaves as expected for me in the Android app (ie. not the dark pattern you described)
I can confirm it's grey on both sides on the website.
https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls
It was easy to not opt-in, I got prompted before I saw any of this.
I think they should keep the opt-in behavior past Sept 28 personally.
Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…
Claude assists me in my math research. The scenario that concerns me is that Claude learns unpublished research ideas from me as we chat and code. Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Clearly commercial accounts use AI to assist in developing intellectual product, and privacy is mandatory. The same can apply to individuals.
More to the point, respecting your wishes to keep those conversations confidential would risk stifling human progress, so they have to be disregarded for the greater good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I'm able to write code I wasn't able to before, like functions heavy with math. For game development, this has been super helpful, when I know basically what inputs I have, and what output I need, but I'm not able to figure out how the actual function implementation should be. Add a bunch of unit tests, let the LLM figure out the math, and I can move on to more important features. For me this been a prett…
The LLM will tell you an approximation of what many responses on the Internet said the math should be, but you should have the knowledge and check if it's actually correct. An LLM can give you a hazy picture, but it's your job to focus it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I'm able to write code I wasn't able to before, like functions heavy with math. For game development, this has been super helpful, when I know basically what inputs I have, and what output I need, but I'm not able to figure out how the actual function implementation should be. Add a bunch of unit tests, let the LLM figure out the math, and I can move on to more important features. For me this been a prett…
You think you are “nailing it” but also lack the background to even determine whether that is the case. I can assure you, there’s likely some fundamental flaws in what you’re vibing. Just think about the type of code these things are trained on and the fact you’re clearly some random non-specialist.
That's just a misunderstanding, I'm not "vibing" anything. The tests are written by me, the API interfaces are written by me, the usages are written by me, and the implementation of these functions are written by an LLM, but reviewed to be up to code standards/quality by me.
If a function gives me the right output for the inputs I have in mind, does anything beyond that really matter?
Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…
This may very well be a rational stance, but either way, wish one could somehow teleport this sentiment to the Cypherpunk mailing list in the 80s/90s. Of all the things they projected, concocted, fought for.. Nothing could truly prepare them for this kind of thing: the final victory of the product over the people, the happy acceptance of surveillance. They were all imagining terrible dystopias garnered from state vio…