In some cases this is what I ask from my juniors.
Not for every commit, but during some specific reviews. The goal is to coach them on why and how they got a specific result.
Companies (C-suites) do not actually want for their worker pool (humans + agents) to stay constant in time, there is no reason for it to stay constant in time. C-suites have very different worries.
And "cost center" is a lie from Outsourcing Era, forget about it.
Yes most comments makes no sense to me. The statement basically both allows surveillance of non-american people and prevents imaginary LLM weapons (I highly doubt we'll see a LLM fully automating a weapon...)
Something feels off about this announcement. Anyone else?
Credit where it's due, going on record like this isn't easy, particularly when facing pressure from a major government client. Still, the two limits Anthropic is defending deserve a closer look.
On surveillance: the carve-out only protects people inside the US. Speaking as someone based in Europe, that's a detail that doesn't go unnoticed. On autonomous weapons: realistically, current AI systems aren't anywhere near capable enough to run one independently. So that particular line in the sand isn't really costing them much.
What I find more candid is actually the revised RSP. It draws a clearer picture of where Anthropic's oversight genuinely holds and where it starts to break down as they race to stay at the cutting edge. The core tension, trying to be simultaneously the most powerful and the most principled player in the room, doesn't have a neat resolution.
This statement doesn't offer one either. But engaging with the question openly, even without all the answers, beats silence and gives the rest of us something real to push back on.
>the carve-out only protects people inside the US. Speaking as someone based in Europe, that's a detail that doesn't go unnoticed.
I'm not sure an American company prioritising the privacy of American people is worth questioning. As a European, Anthropic are very low on the list of companies I worry about in terms of the progressive eradication of my privacy.
Agreed. That said, Anthropic's original pitch was about embedding safety at the foundational level of the 'model' (acknowledging that a model is more than just its weights).
If the safeguard against mass surveillance is strictly tied to geolocation (US vs. non-US), it can't be an intrinsic property of the model. It has to be enforced at the API or contractual level. This means international users are left out of those core, embedded protections. Unless Anthropic is planning to deploy multiple, differently-aligned foundation models based on customer geography or industry, the safety harness isn't really in the model anymore.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. The benchmark creators haven't demonstrated that higher scores result in fewer humans dying or any meaningful outcome like that. If the LLM outputs some naughty words that's not an actual safety problem.
How stopping using hyperscalers models on their infra would "get as much of this capability into the open as possible"?
Either "we" create models better than commercial state of the art (by using whatever means).
Or we use open models AND fund organisations building such models (could be by purchasing service from these orgs or donations - in which case would these orgs be different than hyperscalers?).
But i dont see how just hosting the models on some private servers would give us an edge?
I use a film camera, which removes the possibility of infinite shots. It works for me! And since I must print the pictures, I make duplicates and share with friends and family.
You can give it a try: there are very easy cameras!
I was looking for a similar experience, where I take a picture only to immediately go back into the moment, without disrupting anything.
All those compact cameras were still too large for that purpose, because as the saying goes: "The best camera is the one you always have on you"
After some searching I found an AWESOME gem of a little camera: The DxO One, a camera from back in 2016 from DxO, a company actually specialized in benchmarking camera-quality.
The device was built to be sold at ~700 USD, but flopped and can still be purchased as old-stock for ~110 USD now.
Size is fantastic, Pictures are great, I can only recommend it if someone just wants to capture a moment like it is without people getting pulled out of it.
The device is also somewhat hackable [0], as it's based on the Ambarella platform (RTOS and Linux).
I started collecting infos about it to preserve it [1], there's still alot of potential in this little gem.
Don't know what country you're in, but in general people has been picking up analog cameras again. Madrid probably has at least doubled or tripled the number of print shops in the last 5 years.
The real problem is the price of film has skyrocketed. Since factories has been closing in the last ten years, the offer is low, and the demand is high... Even low quality Chinese stock is going for prices higher than professional rolls where 5 or 6 years ago.
for someone who wants to try that without investing in film camera and film development, there are small handheld printers that can print directly from a phone (and I guess a computer). It doesn't remove the possibility of infinite shots but it allows to focus on the shot you really want to keep and print
This goes well beyond historical precedent. The legal system is complex, but even when Parliament approves a law, it can still be struck down if it violates fundamental principles.
For matters concerning IT and privacy, the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority) could spearhead such cancellation proceedings.
And companies doing business in France should watch out—CNIL sanctions are no joke!
Are there specific events making you feel it has been neutered?
reply