61–70 of 99 posts
I find all of the virtue signalling from AI companies exhausting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting how we dismiss anyone caring about things other than profit as virtue signally. Anthropic was founded by people who seemed to legitimately care about AI safety. It's possible the current conglomeration that is the company doesn't, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that.
It's possible that they have the best intentions but are woefully misguided, like pretty much the average sv techno-optimist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't tried more than a handful of queries, but I think I've gotten 100% rate of hallucination or generic useless response to specific question.
Can I try your question? Just curious.
So, basically all "confidential" information, if you are a subject "of interest", will be in the cloud and used to train models that can spit it out again. And the models will confabulate stories about you. The can call themselves "sonnet", "bard", "open" and a whole plethora of other positive things. What remains is that they go into the direction of Palantir and the rest is just marketing.
https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/9528712-exceptions...
The things which you're allowing yourself to imagine, don't exist in the reality of information we're discussing here
Is there really anyone who thinks this is a good idea? AI systems routinely spit out false information. Why would a system like that be anywhere near a Government? Perhaps (optimistically) this is just a credibility-grab from Anthropic, with no basis in fact.
> Government agencies can use Claude to provide improved citizen services, streamline document review and preparation, enhance policymaking with data-driven insights, and create realistic training scenarios. In the near future, AI could assist in disaster response coordination, enhance public health initiatives, or optimize energy grids for sustainability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but you still need to debug the program. If your program must give correct results you still need to check the program output against every case. There's no free lunch there.
Speaking generally: The program doesn't always have to give correct results. The program just needs to reduce 30k documents down to 200 documents for human review. You're comparing LLMs to a hypothetical alternative where a human reviews all 30k documents in detail. But the real alternative is often just a worse quality sieve where more errors blunder their way through the existing flawed processes. LLMs can improve…
> Claude offers a wide range of potential applications for government agencies, both in the present and looking toward the future. Government agencies can use Claude to provide improved citizen services, streamline document review and preparation, enhance policymaking with data-driven insights, and create realistic training scenarios. In the near future, AI could assist in disaster response coordination, enhance publ…
Firstly, anthropic made an LLM, exposed it to the internet, and provided these terms of acceptable use.
https://www.anthropic.com/legal/archive/4903a61b-037c-4293-9...
There was no need for cynicism or kool aid at this stage.
Later on, presumably now-ish, anthropic changed the usage policy, to add an exception.
https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/9528712-exceptions...
> Exceptions to our Usage Policy
> Updated today
The exception is that, starting from now,
> Anthropic may enter into contracts with government customers that tailor use restrictions to that customer’s public mission and legal authorities if, in Anthropic’s judgment, the contractual use restrictions and applicable safeguards are adequate to mitigate the potential harms addressed by this Usage Policy.
I don't think any kool aid or cynicism is needed.
The change is that, if anthropic think the client use case meets the listed humanitarian goals, then the client may use the LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking generally: The program doesn't always have to give correct results. The program just needs to reduce 30k documents down to 200 documents for human review. You're comparing LLMs to a hypothetical alternative where a human reviews all 30k documents in detail. But the real alternative is often just a worse quality sieve where more errors blunder their way through the existing flawed processes. LLMs can improve…
The epistemology problem never goes away. How should I have any confidence that it's correctly flagging things for review? I need to go through 28800 documents to see if it missed anything. You're right, I am comparing it to that alternative. There are fields and applications where this is necessary. I do not know if drilling reports are one of them. If you can tolerate a large false negative rate then great. But if…
Is there really anyone who thinks this is a good idea? AI systems routinely spit out false information. Why would a system like that be anywhere near a Government? Perhaps (optimistically) this is just a credibility-grab from Anthropic, with no basis in fact.
From the link, > Government agencies can use Claude to provide improved citizen services, streamline document review and preparation, enhance policymaking with data-driven insights, and create realistic training scenarios. In the near future, AI could assist in disaster response coordination, enhance public health initiatives, or optimize energy grids for sustainability.