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.
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
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."
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted for claims like the age of the universe. The closer the measurements are to a human magnitude, the more likely they are to hold up to future science.
6,000 was the guess of technology 200 years ago. They had their reasons. Today 14 billion is the technology of our time. We have our reasons. My point is that technological progression seems to support the idea that 14 billion will seem like a silly number 200 years from now, in a similar way.