It’s not factual. You’re just an idiot typing a single prompt, probably with no agentic loop or curated database to keep it on line. Then you get mad like a caveman wondering why sticks only give fire half the time because you’re not fucking understanding what you’re working with.
Not cancelled. But they may have been flagged internally, I don’t know.
We weren’t violating their terms, only violating their built in model guidelines. American models are usually very sensitive. They’d rather err on the side of blocking content than risk allowing questionable content that is lawful.
But even adjusting prompts, it didn’t yield reliable results. So we have to use uncensored open weights models for many things. It’s not SOTA, but it’s better than nothing.
Government can certainly do illegal things. But why ever enter into a contract with ANY organization or business if you’re concerned that they can violate the terms or violate the law?
Generally not.
Even if they aren’t, Anthropic started business with them months ago. Backing out now for this reason would be a pretense.
If your AI tools are wrong half the time, you’re using it wrong. My legal AI is linked to databases of statutes and case law, providing results more reliable than most legal professionals.
Why? I can’t think of any reason that would not also preclude their usage if all computer assisted tools.
Wait. You still trust human judgment that much?
My company has facilitated the filings of hundreds of litigants representing themselves who cannot afford lawyers, helped swamped public defenders with more cases than they could ever hope to defend without just making plea deals.
Meanwhile you probably sit around complaining about prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system. Doing nothing. Taking a moral high ground while being utterly worthless.
Platitudes aren’t helping anyone.
This honestly strikes me as a story people don’t understand. Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that. However, they still needed the guardrails removed. People interpret this as them wanting mass surveillance, but that’s not necessarily true.
I work for a company that uses AI for legal work, processing and analyzing court cases, discovery documents, etc. We had problems with AI models like Gemini and GPT refusing to do what we needed because of guardrails against violence and abuse of minors. It refused to discuss and analyze cases that involved murders described in detail, or cases involving child molestation, etc. We weren’t using it for unlawful purposes, very much the opposite.
I feel like if people knew that we, like the DoD, had to use uncensored models that allowed such things, people would complain “Wow, you guys are trying to remove guardrails for child expoitation and violence! How terrible!”
Is it so shocking that a military needs their AI to work with such things even if they’re not implementing it? They cannot afford to have AI in critical moments be like “sorry, my guidelines say I can’t help with this.”
This seems like the time Trump advised against pregnant women against using Tylenol. So people started buying and using it in protest. This is yet another reaction to Trump punishing them, but people are pretending Anthropic is making a stand for the people and OpenAI is somehow not. It’s not that simple. Though now Anthropic is eating it up, especially after this last week when they started pissing on the entire tech community that started hating on them.
Which of the Epstein files indicate a criminal offense requiring an arrest? I’ve seen so many of Epstein emails with comments like “WE NEED TO ARREST EVERYONE!” attached to a photo of Epstein with his goddaughter on his lap.
Like… Epstein was already arrested… and it does not appear he trafficked minors to anyone. Am I missing a key email somewhere?
deleted by creator
Section 132 was recorded in 1843 and they were married in 1827. This is not a matter of interpretation. You’re just flat wrong.
By your logic, all sex in Christian marriages is rape. After all, they’re all taught the threats God made against fornicators, thus they’ve been groomed under duress into marriage.
You can go with that logic, and it’s not necessarily wrong. It just muddies what rape is into something meaningless.
I believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn’t stay loyal to him in their marriage. She’s specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It’s a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.
It’s very unlikely Joseph was in his 70s. Neither of their ages are mentioned. Common estimates for Mary are 13-14, and Joseph being in late teens or early 20s.
Instead of taking his virgin daughters, the mob wanted the men (angels). Pretty demoralizing for his daughters. Lot’s daughter may be the first recorded femcels, which would explain their desperate attempt at getting pregnant by their father.
She was pubescent, and thus irrelevant to pedophilia.
How do they support rape? Or do you consider it rape of I tell I woman she’ll go to hell if she doesn’t consent?
I don’t think the Bible talks about child brides. Without that, none of those are related to pedophilia…
Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.
First part is true. Though it’s ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.
While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. “Popularity” is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not “radical change” as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.
The Great Firewall isn’t censorship, it’s to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.
The “protectionism” argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.
Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.
This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.
You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself “Communist.”
At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.
This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I’ll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:
A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).
Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn’t mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.
China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.
Well, I’m against slavery. So I guess our preferences just fundamentally differ.
Good for women who don’t want to give birth, but still half-raise kids. You get a break from the kids during joint custody with ex-wife.