nbulka

The absolute worst and the reason I switched from Anthropic to Codex. Codex caught wind of it of course and now they do use the unsuspecting message: We are reviewing this request (do you mean hoping to train on it? or reviewing?) and if you would like to use a different model, press the "any" key. I wonder if they collect the data they make a point to collect, that would make so much sense ... we need to speak out against these type of data collection patterns. Terrible UX and a dark pattern for them to use the same "accept" buttons of 1, 2, 3 etc. The irony is that THESE feedback messages are the sole thing driving me to consider running open source models locally.

Incidentally by design, I'd bet. "Ooo Lean! Terrence Tao could be trying to break RSA or elliptic curve cryptography! /s" Conveniently for the PR team, we need this data to train on to make sure America has the biggest and best math.

What are the similarities and differences with something like the BP oil spill? Were people charged for that? Corporations are the closest analogue we have to cancer, unfortunately. They grow at all costs and forget their humanity.

Not necessarily monkeys but thinking in Lean first is quite plausible

If you’ve tried any formalizing in codex Astra often works solely in Lean

At first I was mad you beat me to the punch but I guess order doesn't matter.

I really wish the models were smart enough to "tail their own logs" and tell us whose work/papers/chats were the catalyst for these math insights. What makes their "internal" model so much better at math? Must be trained on a whole lot of honesty.

He seems genuinely interested in Surreal numbers. Seems like he found value in exploring them and the Lean process, devoting time and interest to it and understanding what it's like to be a mathematician. I think a lot of people who go into Computer Science may have been mathematicians in the 30s before they became separate majors at the university level.

Shouldn't the cybersecurity tests be done on an airgapped, company-internal intranet? A network meant to mock the internet. Do not "test in production" like OpenAI did.

I'm mulling over if that be a good SaaS product or not - something mixing the Internet Archive with Tor, and Cloudflare ... seems like here is the place to suggest it and have others poke holes at the idea.

When I drive by a Flock camera, my streaming music in my 2014 Rav starts to get scrambled. These cameras are intercepting bluetooth. It seems Toyota didn't account for that latency :facepalm:

Seriously ... the more things they flag as 'suspicious' the more data they can train on!! Brilliant reason for the internal AI to go rogue

Or everyone is stealing from everyone, including users... maybe why all the ethics people are leaving or getting fired. What a fiasco

There's a loophole in the terms of service at least for Anthropic which allows the use of dark patterns to "borrow" your (even paid) data.

talking about this... Was this chat helpful? 1 That button you always click, gotcha! 2 Slightly 3 Good 0 Dismiss

PLEASE DO NOT TRAIN ON OUR PAID ACCOUNTS. There is a fundamental trust violation at stake here, no wonder mathematicians are mad. Using our data should be opt - IN!

And people give Platonists a hard time …

They chose the wrong word "watermarking." Perhaps they find the statistics _after_ a certain amount of text is generated at scale, so that it doesn't affect the fidelity or integrity of the LLMs output.

There is evidence this exists already, and it's why "I have to be honest..." and "This is the right lens, ..." keep popping up.

Probably would be cheaper too. Maybe I am missing something?

Check out the work of Godel Turing and Chaitin!

IANAM but this might be unexplored territory because Jensen polynomials are no longer considered a "plausible route" to proving the Riemann Hypothesis.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.07206

I posted a comment very similar in spirit - we’ve adopted “perfect is the enemy of good” as the operative maxim instead of maximizing accountability and now we may need to flip as AI does that first part quickly enough.

This is not an AI problem this is a “move fast and break things” philosophical problem that has always been lurking in the low-risk, high-reward SaaS industry. It’s just been fed steroids.

Argh went down right in the middle of me solving the Riemanm Hypothesis. If they claim AGI … I’ll take my million dollars! :)

You mean this popup?

https://imgur.com/afqMi0Z

Training on personal data people thought was going to remain private vs. stuff out in public view (copyright or not), are two different magnitudes of ethics breaches. Opt OUT instead of Opt IN for this is CRAZY in my opinion. I hope that the reddit post is WRONG on that detail but I seriously doubt it.

I asked Claude: "If a company has a privacy policy and says they will not train on your data and then decides to change the policy in order "to make the models better for everyone." What should the terms be?"

The model suggests in the first paragraph or so EXPLICIT OPT IN. Not Opt OUT

Because they have terms of service they have to adhere to. We need laws to be lawful.

No you don't. You don't have to assume people are going to be bad! We should not normalize it either.

Don't normalize this. There are contractual obligations that we have to enforce in order to keep our privacy and humanity.

!!!!!!!!!! this... all the times HIPAA and data privacy laws get ignored directly in Jira tickets too. SMH

For those who do not, or cannot, read this announcement prior to September 28th (think people in the hospital, traveling, missed an email ..) is this not a total breach of contract?

Legally, I don't understand how Anthropic's lawyers would have allowed this. Maybe I am just naively optimistic about these matters? I am a Max customer and I might leave! Talk about a "rug pull" ... and I considering moving to an inferior provider! Privacy is a fundamental human right. Please do better, we have not learned our lesson in tech or society because no one is facing any consequences.

We think the universe had to "begin" because we "began" and tend to anthropomorphize. Is that necessarily true? The universe is under no obligation to have a beginning. Sail around the Earth and you might just end up right where you started.

when a theory makes claims about events that fall outside of the physical system they become metaphysical:

age of the universe, creator or not, teleology, interpretations of probability, primacy of logic (are we allowing for the law of excluding middle or not)

Science doesn't do these things but scientism does.

A steel man version of scientism by definition has to be scientism, and I imagine that looks like strict determinisn/reductionism. I imagine it would go along the lines of "we acknowledge that our theories invoke notions of probability and since don't have a better solution we should assert them as universal truths."