731–740 of 765 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is stopping you from switching to GLM 5.2 now? Have you tried it out yet? I'm playing with Deepseek a lot more via OpenRouter recently and the only major downside I can see is the usage billing over the monthly plan
usage billing over the monthly plan when deepseek is over x25 cheaper?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, if all the data people uploaded to these models provided ironclad personal identification, would Anthropic need to have these identity verification processes? > But most likely all the inputs together only add to a rough identity hash. You literally provide your name, email address, address and credit card number when you create an account and subscribe. The identity verification they're doing is for legal pu…
> You literally provide your name, email address, address and credit card number when you create an account and subscribe. I don't recall Anthropic's payment systems, but I use Paypal wherever supported. I don't think Paypal sends my address, but am not sure. I'm pretty sure they don't send the CC information. And often, not even the name (e.g. have often had people use my CC to buy stuff (with my permission)). Also,…
> When you check out with PayPal, the merchant will receive info that is necessary to process the transaction and prevent fraud. This may include:
> Your name, email address, amount received
> Your shipping address and phone number
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you me? Anyway I wonder if you've played with the following, they've been what I've been using to patch CC: https://github.com/skrabe/tweakcc-fixed https://github.com/skrabe/lobotomized-claude-code
Yeah I know about tweakcc, even had some custom prompts committed to my dotfiles repository for a while. For some reason it wasn't working for me, don't remember why. At first I used this shell script here: https://gist.github.com/roman01la/483d1db15043018096ac3babf5... Someone posted it on HN on the Opus degradation thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925 I just kept using it to fix the prompts for a l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See how this comment plays out in the next 5 years.
Here's my prediction: Trump eventually crumbles, but is replaced by an equally (but differently) inept establishment Democrat figure. Conversations about inequality and wealth taxation in the West continue to be (increasingly) suppressed. Backlash against both inequality and related anticapitalist speech suppression continues to grow. Capital interests continue to use redirection (culture wars, race wars, religious w…
The trouble with authoritarian governments is that they depend on competence in the authority.
Xi is 73 now.
Single party states in general, and communist China in particular, don't have a stellar track record of handling power transfers gracefully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you care about geopolitical implications? (I don't see how it supports your argument, sorry.)
What do you think my argument is? China isn’t releasing open weight models for the good of humanity. They are releasing them to undermine US companies financial viability. I care about that because that competition affects me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules Not if you can avoid it, no. > every rule is not based on a legitimate concern? This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern.
> This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern. Well, there are multiple legitimate reasons for Anthropic to ask some customers to do identity verification: 1. To comply with export controls. 2. To prevent abuse. 3. To process requests for increased usage or spend limits. 4. To defend against payment fraud. This really isn't uncommon. I've been asked to do identity verification for something as innocuous…
Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our models are so good that regular people should not have access to it" narrative, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern. Well, there are multiple legitimate reasons for Anthropic to ask some customers to do identity verification: 1. To comply with export controls. 2. To prevent abuse. 3. To process requests for increased usage or spend limits. 4. To defend against payment fraud. This really isn't uncommon. I've been asked to do identity verification for something as innocuous…
Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their new policy, but at the end of the day it's clear that this policy only came after Fable got blocked. You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government. Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our mod…
Your position seems to be based on lack of knowledge of the fact that the US government has broad authority to regulate AI services under existing national security and export control powers.
You can argue that those powers are wrong, but these powers are well-established and perfectly legal.
Anthropic could challenge these in court but, from what I've read, most attorneys specializing in this area of law believe it would face an uphill battle in courts because the related powers are so broad and well-established.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their new policy, but at the end of the day it's clear that this policy only came after Fable got blocked. You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government. Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our mod…
> You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government. Your position seems to be based on lack of knowledge of the fact that the US government has broad authority to regulate AI services under existing national security and export control powers. You can argue that those powers are wrong, but these…
I understand they have the authority. The point that you keep evading to answer is "Why Anthropic only? Why now?".
More than that: why do you keep arguing that people should just accept it? Why do you think that we should just roll over and accept these rules?
I am not asking you "what the courts would say", I am asking you personally: you really don't see a problem in normalizing a world where people can only conduct business if they subject themselves to give away personal data? Do you think that Surveillance Capitalism is just something that people need to accept as some natural state of affairs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I told them who I was and then failed to verify that, they don't know who I am because they think I'm lying about who I am. They know who you claim to be. It’s not like they just delete all information about you when you fail verification. They are perfectly capable of seeing that two separate accounts are both claiming to be the same person. > Otherwise what stops me DoSing Sam Altman's account by saying I'm hi…
Of course not, that's why I fail verification as them. If I had their passport I'd pass verification as them.
It goes something like this (it varies by country / citizenship): first you upload a picture of your ID, then you use your phone to take a video of your face, then the two are matched. A failure is when the uploaded ID doesn’t match your face.
You can’t get to the part where they don’t match without uploading a picture of their ID. If you don’t have their ID, then you can’t fail to match. If you fake the ID, then when they come to upload their own ID, their ID won’t match your fake ID and they won’t be blocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Net result: The future is here, but unevenly distributed. Waymo operates in a select few city, but in those cities, you can call a car, that car will have no human driver in it, and the computer will drive you to your destination. Yes it's taken a long time, but if your "evidence" is self driving cars, you might want to address your priors.
I feel like you missed the point pretty aggressively here if you're trying to claim waymo's existence in any way justifies burning roughly the GDP of Luxembourg on R&D. This should be a fairly alarming indicator of how utterly divorced the tech industry is from any kind of real world outcomes and just one of countless examples of tech industry hype resulting in embarrassingly miniscule returns when actual results are…
San Francisco Bay Area, CA Los Angeles, CA Metro Phoenix, AZ Miami, FL Orlando, FL Dallas, TX Houston, TX San Antonio, TX Nashville, TN
I don't know why comparing it to the GDP of Luxembourg is interesting but sure. 1.9 million people die annually in car crashes.What would you spend it on?