That is to say, anthropic should be considered responsible, not (or not just) the users.
10,220 karma · joined June 8, 2011
That is to say, anthropic should be considered responsible, not (or not just) the users.
Do a Google image search for pelican, you get a diverse set of sub species of pelicans and different poses and angles for them. Go on a writing prompt forum, you get many diverse ideas from the same simple prompt. Hell, ask your friends at a dinner party to describe a pelican riding a bike and see what happens.
Now, there are a lot of images of bikes from that side angle facing right on the web. Why? Because that's how they're staged on e-commerce websites. Does this say something about AI?
0 - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/sep/08/ai-cure-can...
I had to put down too many early 3D action games because of clunky controls and not being able to see what was going on. Maybe horror games (like resident evil) could get away with awkward cameras in the service of jump scares, but it's frustrating when you have to make a jump and the camera, and thus the controls, don't cooperate with you.
Anyway, I'm a big fan of what their new(ish) management has been doing, especially with infowars. I hope they can get the issues they're looking for.
This is what courts are for. There is no exact line because many situations are different.
Surely you don't have to have a big red cancel button on every page of your platform
Why not?
Some examples would be helpful
The text you quoted is clear enough to me, and it's probably clear to any reasonable person (most rules are written this way). If you're worried about gaming the system to find the exact process that just on the "legal" side of things, you probably aren't reasonable.
I think they're usually called "homestead exemption" or something like that.
This was true back then too. Computer Gaming World dates back to 81. Also the software stores that I (i.e., my parents) shopped at back then discounted older titles. This is why I got to play through the Castle of Dr. Brain after the Island of Dr. Brain was released.
It's a big cult and you ain't in it.
It's also obvious given the context of the very next sentence that he doesn't mean this as literally as you've interpreted.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-afl-cio-report-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2026/05/12/g-s1-12...
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-afl-cio-report-...
It's like not this represents something like a cycle accurate Cave CV1K board, which are very expensive and imperfectly emulated.
It sounds like a catalyst for more red tape, more creepy Internet tracking, higher drug costs and more impossible to break subscriptions, all to help some health care companies' bottom lines. I don't consider this fine.
Why do you think this is fine?
This is something to be concerned about though, with the context of who/what these AI companies have access to.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false...