An obvious point, but your marketing page absolutely needs a before -> after comparison. Just showing the after image doesn't work.
Also I think it really needs to let you actually try it with your own image (watermarked or whatever). Who wants to pay 5 pounds to find out the generated image doesn't quite look like you, or looks too fake or whatever.
The pricing seems maybe ok if you know you're definitely getting a usable image out of the process. But if there's any risk whatsoever, it feels much too expensive.
Because the laws, as I understood them, apply to platforms with social interaction with strangers. (Watching YouTube is ok - logging into YouTube is not.) Whereas I understand Substack to be essentially a one-way channel.
I did not have to verify anything, so here is the text
Marcus on AI
America, and probably the world, stands on a precipice.
Call your Senators and Representatives, right now.
Gary Marcus
Feb 26, 2026
As I wrote here yesterday, Anthropic’s showdown with The US Department of War may literally be life or death for all of us. If Pete Hegseth forces Dario Amodei to fold, not one but two monstrous precedents will be set.
The first is obvious, and terrible in itself. The second is subtle but no less important.
The first is that what Secretary Hegseth is demanding, backed by heavy threats, is that the US military have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s AI software, for applications such as military surveillance and autonomous weapons without humans in the loop. This could well extend to nuclear weapons.1
Nothing that I have read convinces me that Secretary Hegseth has a nuanced understanding of the strengths and limits of current AI, or that he will show restraint in how he applies it. Rather he is trying to define his career in part around deploying AI as broadly and as quickly as possible.
The second is that Hegseth’s maneuver is an audacious power grabs that aims to circumvent Congress. By setting a deadline of 5:01 PM eastern tomorrow, Hegseth aims to cut everybody else – even Congress — out of the loop.
A reader of this newsletter, a tech writer who describes himself as a political independent just wrote to me, rightfully panicked:
Today the Pentagon will force Anthropic to change their corporate goal of responsible AI. This is not something to be decided in the marketplace by a bully with deep pockets; it must be decided in Congress. Senators and Congressmen must take a position and deliberate in public about whether it is OK to use AI for surveillance of Americans and to launch lethal strikes controlled by AI with no “human in the loop”. Please say something today, before Amodei has to surrender.
He is right.
Please call or write your Senators and Representatives right now.
§
AI policy, especially of this magnitude, is something that American people should have a say in. Congress should deliberate. Mass surveillance and AI-fueled weapons, possibly nuclear, without humans in the loop are categorically not things that one individual, even one in the Cabinet, should be allowed to decide at a gunpoint.
But that is exactly where we are headed.
1
Hegsseth’s demand would in principle extend to apply Anthropic’s software to nuclear weapons without humans in the loop. In that connection, people should probably be aware of the fact that S. 1394 - Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act of 2023 failed to pass. Which means we might not have a Stanislav Petrov next time around.
Discussion about this post
Write a comment...
Richard Self
7h
Given the unreliability of GenAI in everything that it do, the use in unsupervised warfare will be catastrophic.
Reply
Share
1 reply
Roman's Attic
7h
From what I’ve heard, these calls are especially valuable if you emphasize that this is an issue that will determine how you vote in the future
That's the nature of disclosure deadlines. Talk is cheap. If they didn't disclose when they said they would, Google wouldn't feel any pressure to fix the issue.
It seemed like this was already being exploited online so it is responsible to disclose so people can protect themselves by revoking their keys. Bills near $100,000 are showing up for people.
Presumably they are implying that if they read creative suggestions, they open themselves to the possibility of being sued if they ever implemented anything similar to what was suggested. Doesn't sound too complicated to explain to a kid.
I always thought the catch-22 was funny where they say they saw that I was suggesting an idea ¾ of the way through the letter, so they chose to return the letter without reading it.
Fair enough. I think I cracked the case though: they probably have someone who isn't "them" read the letters though, a third party like another law firm or some contractor that offers that service specifically.
Yup, me too. In fact, I might consider simple copyright for something like a board game. Granted, I’ve never registered an actual copyright either. I suppose I should try it out.
His father who oversaw his education and possibly both parents, and Bentham that played a role in his education as well, would have known either Greek, or Latin or both as they were considered essential to a rounded education at the time.
I learned two languages growing up and was speaking both as soon as I could speak and could write in both not long after. This is typical for nearly every kid in the world outside of countries with strong language monocultures. I certainly think Mills was a very talented person, but there's this weird cult of being impressed by "speaks 7 languages" hagoigraphies which aren't helpful. People bring up it as some acid test of intelligence and its just not very accurate.
Especially when you actually know the language these kinds of people claim to speak and you realize they actually don't speak 7 languages but maybe know 2 or 3 fluently and know 'kitchen' versions of all the others. I'm not going to name names because I don't want an argument and don't have the spoons for it, but lots of these international luminaries and leaders and such with "speaks 7 language" are often little more than conmen or simply enjoy building their own little hagiographies for their own PR goals.
There's this wonderful deep-dive on youtube on Feynman's high-questionable personal mythology that is a great example of this kind of self-promotion and how easy it is to sell one's self, especially in academic and techie circles, if you have a certain amount of charisma and drive.
Also as a lefty, I'm also not impressed by breathless ambidextrous tales either as most lefties are forced to be ambidextrous and its not actually exceptional at all. I can write with both hands, play musical instruments either way, play sports either way, etc. The left hand is better at these things, but my right-hand is okay-ish at almost all these things and I use a right-hand dominant near everything in my life anyway. I even like to switch it up to keep wear and tear down. At work the mouse is on the left, but at home for gaming its on the right. This is all boring everyday stuff for lefties.
There's a toxic 'great man' mythology that humanity still can't get over and its weird seeing it taken seriously when so many 'great men' have been debunked or seen as recipients of the system they were under (Mills' father pushing him so hard and being in the privileged class that would allow all this instead of back-breaking farm labor all day). Personal talent is important but its vastly played up in dishonest ways for dishonest gains. We probably pass many highly talented people a day on the street, but only some had the opportunity to grow those gifts into something they can use.
The famous quote comes to mind. "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould
If you introduced it with "Here's a logic problem..." then people will approach it one way.
But as specified, it's hard to know what is really being asked. If you are actually going to wash your car at the car wash that is 50 metres away, you don't need to ask this question.
Therefore the fact that the question is being asked implies that something else is going on...but what?
reply