Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide an example?
https://www.cnil.fr/en/dark-patterns-cookie-banners-cnil-iss...
This link is not even remotely close to an example of the behavior you described.
Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
471–480 of 551 posts
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#472Earlier 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.
> Does that make it a net positive for humanity? That I don't know, and probably no one else, way too early to tell. I only responded to a comment stating "LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick", which obviously I disagree with as for me they've been a fundamental shift in what I'm able to do. > From the energy consumption impact on climate change alone I would say the answer is…
> So if someone happens to use local models at home, in a home that is powered by solar power, then you'd feel LLM starting to be a net positive for humanity?
Sure, that would make a difference, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon, other than hacker hobbyists, because no one is making money off of that.
> This is such a big thing in general (that I agree with) but it has nothing to do with LLMs as a technology.
Correct -- I don't have any issue with the technology itself, but rather how the technology is implemented and used, and the resources put towards its use. And BigTech are putting hundreds of $B into this -- for what end exactly besides potentially making tons of money off of consumer subscribers or ads a-la-Meta or Google? If BigTech was putting the same amount of money into technology that could actually benefit humanity (you know, like actually saving the world from potential future destruction by climate change), I'd have a much kinder view of them.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving Never? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Yes, that was my point.
And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.
The original meaning of sane is "physically healthy". Its usual modern meaning is "mentally healthy". You're using it to mean "reasonable". At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting, not "evolution."
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#475Claude 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.
> Claude assists me in my math research. > Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Won't this mean that claude assisted you with someone else work? Sure it's not from a "chat" but claude doesn't really know anything other than it's training data
If you have an idea and are putting it together, you might use Claude for a few things:
- Search the web for related ideas. This could help if someone's already had the idea or if there are things to learn from related ideas. - Review your writeup or proofs for mistakes and clarity
None of these things make the idea Claude's. Claude merely helped with some of the legwork.
But Claude now has your idea in clear, plain text to train on. The next time someone hits on even a similar idea, Claude might well suggest your idea outright. Not seeing your idea published, the user has no way to know it isn't a novel idea. If the person is less diligent/thorough, they may well publish first and claim it as there own, without any nefarious intent.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, on the contrary, I chose my words carefully ("mildly sociopathic OF ME") as to avoid casting shade on others. Saying "this is how I feel", so to preclude judging others. Everyone makes their own choices, and that's fine. 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 ab…
Thanks for this considered response. I find it difficult to disagree with anything you said in this particular comment :) however I do think each instance you mention in this message is quite different to the topic at hand, regarding the big tech data machine. Additionally, I think I would rather our UK level of privacy regarding healthcare data than the commercialised free for all in the US. One counterpoint could b…
Thanks for the consideration. Yeah US and UK are different in that respect. I got the impression that US ends with the worst deal on both ends: organisations that could help you are denied your data, while organisation most unscrupulous most bent on doing their worst with your data, get almost free access to it.
For UK - I'm reasonably sure some people will have died because of the difficulties sharing their data, that would not have died otherwise. "Otherwise" being - they could communicate with the NHS, share their data, similarly via email, WhatsApp etc, to how they communicate and share data in their private and professional lives.
People at personal level have a fairly reasonable stance, in how they behave, when it comes to sharing their data. They are surprisingly subtle in their cost-benefit analysis. It's only when they answer surveys, or talk in public, that they are less-than-entirely-truthful. We know this, b/c their revealed preferences are at odds with what they say they value, and how much they value.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop. If they had done this in a more measured way they might have been able to separate human from AI content such as doing legal deals with publishers. However they couldn't wait to just take it all to be first and now the well is poisoned for everyone.
> It's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop. I've seen zero evidence anything of the such is occurring, and that if it was, it's due to what you claim. I'd be highly interested in research suggesting both or either is occurring however.
"AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data"
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t own knowledge. Intellectual property is a legal fiction invented to prop up industries. You can no more own knowledge or information than you can own the number 2.
Property itself is a legal fiction. Every other right you enjoy is a legal fiction. So what?
> Property itself is a legal fiction.
Maybe real property (which only exists because of a property record held in a government building), but it is self-evident to me (and, I believe, most people) that personal property is a natural right.
One only need look up some TikTok videos of Americans getting pickpocketed in Europe to see how large groups of people feel on the matter.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got a pop-up when I opened the app explaining the change and an option to opt out. That seems very transparent to me.
> That seems very transparent to me Implicit consent is not transparent and should be illegal in all situations. I can't tell you that unless you opt out, You have agreed to let me rent you apartment. You can say analogy is not straightforward comparable but the overall idea is the same. If we enter a contract for me to fix your broken windows, I cannot extend it to do anything else in the house I see fit with Implic…
As a real world counterexample, medical in the USA does this shit all the time.
Local office will do a blood draw, send it to a 3rd party analysis which isn't covered by insurance, then bill you full. And you had NO contractual relationship with the testing company.
Same scam. And its all because our government is completely captured by companies and oligopoly. Our government hasn't represented the people in a long time.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can confirm it's grey on both sides on the website.
I get blue (on) / black (off) on the website. Or blue / white in light mode. 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.
They’re likely A/B testing the interface change, which is why people are getting inconsistent results