HIPAA explicitly allows government collection.

Persona collects far more info on you than a name and credit card number. There are also some obfuscation services for cards (will it reject a prepaid debit card?), which would require them to go through extra steps to get your actual identity.

>I don't understand why Anthropic would expose themselves to the liability; when arguably they have all the tools baked right in.

What liability? When has a company ever faced any significant penalty for irresponsibly handling people's private data?

>Say you wanted to use AI to prepare whistleblowing submission to use regulatory language and test for any weak points.

Why would you do this? If you can't write it yourself, you're just sabotaging your effort once the hallucinations are revealed. Secondly, a whistleblower is going to use a corporate LLM provider? Even without ID checks, that's an extremely uncompensated risk.

>untrustworthy

For the user, sure. But for companies and governments? I'm pretty sure Person is quite trustworthy.

Devs are often also users. cli is nice because

- automation - sometimes avoid enshittified, privacy-invading services - fast, responsive, keyboard-friendly, debloated but non-minimized, stabler interface

thank you for this example. It's always heartwarming to see such case. However I have this, maybe defeatist, feeling that companies take more than they give - in general. I remember working in companies, where giving away my source code to the public would require a ton of work approval and effort, which was heavily discouraging that. On the other hand, the companies want the opensource to take care of everything...

Maybe it's only mine feeling, so I hope you guys have different experience.

I agree with you. I guess that's what people sign up for whether they understand it or not when using licenses like MIT, BSD, etc.

Yes they took money that they have to spend in AI to evaluate the new uploads.

Basically they got some free tokens, not actual "money".

Also I got a 2 week ban on the python discuss for suggesting that people who contribute on behalf of companies (such as microsoft) should be disclosing it. So PSF is as corporate as it gets in my eyes.

The issue is single-channel feature and security updates.

What do you consider to be an ad that actually adds value to the viewer's life in contrast to other ads?

If it's an internet-required smarthammer without a handle that instead hits out on voice prompt, sometimes without enough or with too much force, sometimes knocks the nail out of the way and punches a hole, and sometimes hits you in the face, then yeah

> If it's an internet-required smarthammer without a handle that (...)

A suitable comparison would be to be faced with a nailgun and proceeding to criticize it on the grounds it doesn't have a handle, it doesn't pull nails, and it requires electricity to run.

While you complain about those detailed those using nailguns are an order of magnitude more productive at the same task, and can still carry a hammer in their toolbelt.

I originally was writing the post using a nailgun, but decided someone would criticize it for straying too far away from a hammer. Alas.

> I originally was writing the post using a nailgun, but decided someone would criticize it for straying too far away from a hammer. Alas.

The point is still unaddressed, isn't it?

>Sending you an email after you signed up is "unethical"?

I never consent to advertising. If I receive an advertisement, that means it was forced on me. Which I consider unethical.