Leynos

The users in this case had given permission for their data to be used for training (or at least hadn't opted out). They had not, of course, given permission for their data to be shared publicly or with a third party in this way. Consequently, OpenAI categorized this as a breach (i.e., something they did not intend to do), and sought to rectify the situation.

- Learning in a self-directed way that aligns with the needs of your role and where it is going

- Clear communication, the ability to edit and know how to say what is important

- Forming and testing hypotheses

- Evaluating and testing tools and work product, and being able to recognize and rectify deviations

- Delegating, setting constraints, rubrics and escalation criteria

- Having a clear definition of done and being able to stick with it

- Understanding business domains and modelling them usefully

- Collaborating with others, communicating your needs and capabilities clearly, eliciting the needs and capabilities of others, synthesizing conflicting needs and aligning compounding capabilities

The adoption of genAI and agentic tooling really just serves to make all of these more important.

OpenAI and Anthropic wouldn't be able to get enterprise contracts without it.

Sure, the AI vendors could be lying, but I think it unlikely given the harm it would do to them to violate an enterprise contract in this way.

Of course, it remains to be seen what several thousand 27B models running at sub 1 tps speed can achieve. (The IoT device mechanism proposed by Anthropic).

I suspect a more likely path is compromise of the billing and provisioning systems of fly-by-night neoclouds.

Compromise enough devices (think thousands of off-brand TVs), and you have plenty of redundancy.

And yes, it does indeed seem that a UK government agency ran a controlled experiment where they allowed an agent to instigate phishing attacks against members of the public. Attributing this to Anthropic is wrong. I'm not sure how I feel about my government conducting such attacks on non-consenting individuals, but I'm not comfortable about it in the slightest.

I can only conclude from this that I am not at all serious in my field. That's okay. I'm too busy enjoying myself.

Revisit later if the comparison starts to become ridiculous.

The planning model for tool use sounds something like CaMeL, which someone should really try implementing in a product.