Idgi. What word are you supposed to use when referencing females now? It's not "woman," unless you're wanting to talk about gender. Or are people back to equating the two?
Didn't people complain about the lack of redactions for victims, even though it has now been confirmed, by those who viewed the unredacted files, that many of those redacted victims were trafficking minors and were authors of some of the questionable emails?
Yet when they take them down temporarily to review redactions, people are mad about that too?
People have all the documents backed up already. If they fail to restore any of them, then we'll know. 🤷♂️
Really? Accidental over-disclosure or improper redaction of legal documents only happens in countries "run by tax collecting pedophiles, rapists and war hawks"?
It's not factual. You're just an idiot typing a single prompt, probably with no agentic loop or curated database to keep it on line. Then you get mad like a caveman wondering why sticks only give fire half the time because you're not fucking understanding what you're working with.
Not cancelled. But they may have been flagged internally, I don't know.
We weren't violating their terms, only violating their built in model guidelines. American models are usually very sensitive. They'd rather err on the side of blocking content than risk allowing questionable content that is lawful.
But even adjusting prompts, it didn't yield reliable results. So we have to use uncensored open weights models for many things. It's not SOTA, but it's better than nothing.
Government can certainly do illegal things. But why ever enter into a contract with ANY organization or business if you're concerned that they can violate the terms or violate the law?
Generally not.
Even if they aren't, Anthropic started business with them months ago. Backing out now for this reason would be a pretense.
If your AI tools are wrong half the time, you're using it wrong. My legal AI is linked to databases of statutes and case law, providing results more reliable than most legal professionals.
My company has facilitated the filings of hundreds of litigants representing themselves who cannot afford lawyers, helped swamped public defenders with more cases than they could ever hope to defend without just making plea deals.
Meanwhile you probably sit around complaining about prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system. Doing nothing. Taking a moral high ground while being utterly worthless.
This honestly strikes me as a story people don't understand. Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that. However, they still needed the guardrails removed. People interpret this as them wanting mass surveillance, but that's not necessarily true.
I work for a company that uses AI for legal work, processing and analyzing court cases, discovery documents, etc. We had problems with AI models like Gemini and GPT refusing to do what we needed because of guardrails against violence and abuse of minors. It refused to discuss and analyze cases that involved murders described in detail, or cases involving child molestation, etc. We weren't using it for unlawful purposes, very much the opposite.
I feel like if people knew that we, like the DoD, had to use uncensored models that allowed such things, people would complain "Wow, you guys are trying to remove guardrails for child expoitation and violence! How terrible!"
Is it so shocking that a military needs their AI to work with such things even if they're not implementing it? They cannot afford to have AI in critical moments be like "sorry, my guidelines say I can't help with this."
This seems like the time Trump advised against pregnant women against using Tylenol. So people started buying and using it in protest. This is yet another reaction to Trump punishing them, but people are pretending Anthropic is making a stand for the people and OpenAI is somehow not. It's not that simple. Though now Anthropic is eating it up, especially after this last week when they started pissing on the entire tech community that started hating on them.
I don't have that faith any more, but I used to be devout and associated almost exclusively with religious people. When I work as a missionary, my life focused only on God and church work, the prospect of dying didn't feel significant to me. It was unfortunate, like getting ill, but nothing dire. It actually made it difficult for me to sympathize when I was helping comfort people who had a loss in their family. It led me to thinking that most people don't actually believe their loved ones are going to a better place or that they're going to see them again. Their grief is closer to how I would react to irrevocable loss.
In short, I've learned that people grieve a lot differently than I do. I don't think it proves people care about someone more just because they're constantly bawling and inconsolable.
All these stories amount to "wow, she's not grieving like I think she should!"
Who gives a fuck. What a bizarre fixation on a widow's reaction.
She believes in the Christian God and most people making this point probably don't. So no shit she's not going to grieve the same way. She didn't really lose him in her mind. It's just temporary.
Nobody is having that conversation because of a comment Trump made. Literally no change to gun rights is being proposed or even suggested. People are drawing unfounded policy conclusions from nothing.
Most AI platforms allow sexualized content to varying degrees. Google, Instagram, Tiktok, etc all host CSAM. Always have. It's been understood that they're not liable to the extent that they remove it when reported. Their detection technology is pretty good as to automatically handle it, but never perfect. They keep track of origins and comply with subpoenas which has gotten tons of people convicted.
Grok image gen was put behind a paywall, which people claim is worse. However, most people paying lose anonymity and thus can be appropriately handled when they request illicit content, even if Grok refuses the request like it usually does.
I think the Grok issue is sensationalized and taken out of context of the realities of what happens online and in law enforcement.
They have lots of snobbish gatekeeping still, it just exists at a higher level. Entry level knowledge is abundant. But once you seek a community with more specialized expertise, the IRC channels will be private and have passwords, and you better have contributed something to a novel exploit or something...
Idgi. What word are you supposed to use when referencing females now? It's not "woman," unless you're wanting to talk about gender. Or are people back to equating the two?