> If it was transpiled there would be what GNU calls a "preferred form" of the linker source in which it wasn't written in Rust.
No, that's only sometimes true. If you like the transpiled version and start editing it directly then that's the new preferred form, but it was still a transpile to get from one language to the other.
The main complicating factors in Unicode that could have been avoided are around CJK unification and the overflow past 16 bits. Both are very much problems of encoding normal languages, not doing more.
Every day that goes by, it's more likely that it's UTF-8 and "\r and/or \n (greedy)(in that order)" works to parse the line endings. So I'm not very bothered.
"Anthropic" does not read messages, it's an abstract entity involving many humans and computers, so let's be specific wherever possible.
> and respond to it in some way.
The computer is supposed to respond in a specific way that doesn't involve humans. Any reading/actions by humans is entirely separate and not expected.
> If you sent an email to a colleague threatening violence, you would not be surprised to find out it was reported.
Oh for sure don't trust any single copy. But I wonder, how many surface errors? How much of the data would have been lost if all your drives degraded that much?
For example, if most files are multiple gigabytes, the drive has 3 million tracks, and 3 thousand of those tracks are ruined: one degraded copy leads to most files being broken, two degraded copies leads to only a single digit number of files being broken, and three degraded copies means >99% odds of recovering everything.
And with the magic of par2 files, a single drive with a couple percent of corrupted tracks can be fully recoverable. Any cold backup I do gets some of those.
Individuals can sign up for enterprise agreements. An enterprise can consist of one person. Or run a local model.
It seems like some people seem to think that a chatbot should guarantee total privacy like a confession to a Catholic priest or something. That is ludicrous and unrealistic. It's a commercial service subject to terms and conditions. If you don't like it then don't use it.
> Individuals can sign up for enterprise agreements. An enterprise can consist of one person.
Custom negotiation is a big difficulty for individuals and the pricing will probably have fixed overhead that becomes pretty ridiculous when it's not spread over a hundred or thousand users.
> Or run a local model.
Much better advice. But still an obnoxious amount of effort and restriction to avoid spying.
> It seems like some people seem to think that a chatbot should guarantee total privacy like a confession to a Catholic priest or something. That is ludicrous and unrealistic. It's a commercial service subject to terms and conditions. If you don't like it then don't use it.
I want it to have the same privacy as using a local program. Does it still sound ludicrous if I put it that way? I'm not talking to a person that would have to suppress their own conversations later, and there's no need for any data from this chat to escape into the outside world. It's like wanting a phone line where the phone company won't listen in; even if doing that is standard procedure and I can walk away it's still gross.
In the case that the company running this program for me is served a warrant, I accept that saved data would be shared. But proactively screening my data for a reason that isn't to help me is bad. We should fight to make that easier to avoid.
Also you're talking out both sides of your mouth when you say it's "ludicrous and unrealistic" right after telling me I can negotiate that exact feature in an enterprise contract.
Yes, it still sounds ludicrous if you put it that way. If you want a contractual agreement for privacy then pay for it. Everything is available — for a price. But a civil agreement can't bind a counterparty to conceal evidence of a crime.
Privacy should be an offer from the start if it's not mandatory. It shouldn't need special negotiation.
> But a civil agreement can't bind a counterparty to conceal evidence of a crime.
Are you talking about a different scenario? In a chatbot situation, the crime of "threat" requires snooping to even be possible. If the data is private there is no crime to begin with.
Our devices, even Anthropic in this case, set an expectation that doesn't match reality. The software and devices we use are marketed and sold to us to be used for our private documents, photos, and conversations. I can't blame people for using them for their intended purpose. They shouldn't assume that someone is carefully watching everything they do and judging their every word and action looking for evidence of crimes. If we want people to think of the devices and services they bought and use as belonging to someone else and without any expectation for privacy we should really start with forcing companies to change how they market their products and services to reflect that reality.
reply