Also of note: they are a competitor to Flock. While it's not crazy for a company of that scale to bet on both sides of the "privacy vs surveillance state" match, it can be assumed that they'll need to commit to one over the other, somewhere down the line.
I'll hand it to you, "Trump is awful because he was a Democrat, and Democrats are de facto awful" is one I haven't seen before. That said, within my own anecdotal experience, "God Bless Trump" signs are pretty common in the Bible Belt, and that certainly is a sentiment born of authoritarian times.
I'll be angling hard towards abandoning Proton (and no longer recommending it to others) so long as Yen remains CEO. Hopefully, the larger company realizes the threat someone like him poses to their image AND quality of service.
I believe what they are singling out is that pulling Claude's trigger results in a bullet firing from Anthropic's servers. Liability is less confusing with firearms, and investors care about liability, like, a lot.
While "useful service" may be generous wording, in my own experience, when given the option between "pentesting" and "ransom+patching", most corporations would prefer the third, cheaper option: do nothing.
While I wouldn't go as far as claiming Bell stole the patent, that he filed his patent within hours of Elisha Grey is so fortuitous a coinicidence that one can't help but wonder if it weren't a coincidence.
"Digital effects" have always been a grey area for unreasonable search-and-seizure. This was an infamous moment for the late Antonin Scalia, who, iirc, argued that the constistution couldn't reasonably be addressing this matter, as the Founding Fathers had no concept of digital effects when defining "documents and effects".
I expect because it's overly reductive to the point of falsehood. Two sufficiently complex systems will likely exhibit enough parallels to form a useful analogy, but that does nothing to reflect the ways the systems aren't alike.
I'm not outside of enterprise and have worked hands-on for over a decade with AI-driven customer workflows. The cost of accessibility audits are NOT higher than AI R&D or third-party B2B contracts for vaporware touting to do the same.
Sorry if that assertion stands opposed to your value prop.
Research and fallbacks would certainly be better. An 85% design, 15% algorithmic solution is probably the sweet "pobody's nerfect" spot, but a company using AI to solve accessibility is like selling rape whistles -- in a perfect world, your market is nonexistent.
> Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'
I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don't see such a precedence emerge, especially around a company touting to be selling "intelligence".
I have seen it do exactly that, in a "hands thrown up" fashion.
Note the levels of "thinking" that occur on NOT assertions. Those streams typically keep things on track. It's not that saying "don't use the Internet" will cause it to rebuke cos misalignment (a childish concept made by laymen, I'll add.) It's that the odds of it later "forgetfully" spewing in a thought stream, "wait, I have't checked the Internet" goes up substantially.
Saying "using only offline methods, do xyz" limits those odds considerably.
This isn't opinion or anecdote -- just how the model works. The additional guardrails to keep the model on track are bolted on via finetuning, hence the increasing jankiness.
It'll work up to a point, but pay attention to the thought streams when asserting what NOT to do and you'll see the turmoil it creates in the context.
Your prompt is more of a linguistic linchpin that allows you to coax out needed patterns. You place your pins on what you want to contextualize for the task at hand, not on what you don't want to contextualize.
It's also worth noting that saying "Don't cheat" just added "cheat" to the context. Prompting what "not" to do is folly, because there's no decision making occurring. Telling the model to perform the task locally is logically the same as telling it to not use the Internet, without every mentioning the Internet.
The AI service that trained and hosts the model, and then gave access to the general public while deferring their actual liability via a sneaky ToS.
It's strange how many people feel ownership over "their" agents, and it's clear that AI companies plan to take advantage of that as a way to avoid legal liability for the things they actually do -- with their servers and their code -- on behalf of someone who only wrote a string.
I'm struggling to imagine aliens resurrecting a data center and countless hackneyed python packages so they can spew a language they don't even know. Not that it wouldn't be useful to their linguists, of course, but still a very optimistic analogy for LLMs.
When measuring and reporting models to the non-saavy, I usually reframe them into odds. One failure for every 49 successes is a scary failure rate when operating at a large scale.
This is largely why I don't condone LLMs in operational pipelines. Your workflow? Fine. The company's? Hell no.