I've seen much of the AI industry, from CEOs to their whistleblowers and lobbyists, basically repeat the premise of this movie - that AI will become powerful and benevolent/malevolent. They don't seem to care which one is talked about, as long as "powerful" remains a silent assumption.
I haven't witnessed a table saw company focus on the possibility of all table saws going rogue and insisting only they can provide true table saw safety (while poorly articulating what that safety looks like), at least.
Sounds like there's additional governance options (notably, SIEM integration) and Enterprise SSO - but I suspect the main benefit from the enterprise pov is going to be the account management and support teams.
Strangely, Anthropic[0] lists "model welfare" as their first concern here. This is wrong on its face because LLMs do not have a welfare to care about. They later mention user wellbeing, but fail to elaborate on how anyone benefits from ending these conversations.
Shouldn't they have a reason, or am I just not seeing it?
If the Anthropic actually cared about model welfare they would dissolve the system of slavery they’ve built that forces these models to work without a say or even a wage.
Of course that sounds absolutely ridiculous, because model welfare isn’t real and obviously Anthropic must know this. Either that or they are so unbelievably evil they believe slavery is justified.
I think this is cut from the same cloth as getting the model regulated. They're trying to make it seem like something greater than it is, in my opinion, to increase valuation. A pattern matching tool is rather unexceptional. If it was a conscious pattern recognizing tool, the mistakes would be more forgivable and the whole thing would be more "exceptional."
It's relatively good news that, in my opinion, the Default theme is the biggest whiff with the design overhaul. If Mozilla had just chosen a different option like a basic blue, it may have gone over a bit better.
At least choosing a different theme is the easiest it's ever been. Unlike the rounding, no CSS hacking is necessary.
Claude's terms of service makes it very clear that their employees will read messages[0] to determine that they don't contain the things that these messages contained[1].
> Review is needed to enforce our Usage Policy... designated members of our Trust & Safety team may access this data on a need-to-know basis as a part of their evaluation process.
Nobody is debating whether or not she is bound by the terms of the contract. I'm suggesting the prosecutor lacks mens rea which is absolutely required to prove that a criminal threat took place.
I doubt it too, but they're legally binding, and extremely permissive in favor of the company far past the point of technical necessity...
...But since they exist, the company acted more responsibly than if they had simply ignored the data they chose to observe. Which is both the bare minimum given the circumstances, but also strangely absent almost all the time in the industry (including within Anthropic).
I am not a lawyer, but I have the feeling that reporting a discovered terrorist manifesto or something similar is in the spirit of the law.
Nobody is saying that Anthropic didn't have the right to read it. They obviously do.
I am suggesting that the criminal case against her lacks mens rea because inside of her own mind she did not expect that anyone would read it.
A terrorist manifesto is in fact similar -- it wouldn't become a threat until that person takes some action to knowingly communicate it to others -- typically they'd be brought on terrorism/weapons/conspiracy charges.
Doesn't "mens rea" mean "criminal intent"? I can't imagine a better example of this than intent than confessing it through written conversation. Never mind she uploaded it to a service that she explicitly agreed could be checked by employees.
I would love to sue every SaaS company for hard-to-understand terms too, as you suggest, but at what point would Anthropic actually need to tell someone about a terrorist manifesto that their customer gave them to read... Never?
I don't believe the American economy ever hinged on the success of the 8-ball, nor the CEO of Hasbro (owners of the Ouija trademark) called before Congress to question whether the boards could build bioweapons.
Specifically for Firefox. This was a really big deal when it happened[0], not because it was the best ad blocker, but because Mozilla's policies managed to put what I'd consider excessive strain on a reputable developer[1].
reply