If you look at Anthropic's terms of service and privacy policy, it clearly states that they can look at your content in order to enforce their usage policy. You have to agree to this when you set up an account or use their service. Given that this is an AI company, you can bet your content will be screened for violations more efficiently than if humans were involved at every step.

If she really didn't mean for anyone else to view it, she would have scribbled it down in a notebook instead of uploading into a cloud owned and policed by strangers and their robots.

It's a paper copy of underground utility records and a backhoe.

640k ought to be enough for anybody.

That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

Probably the next code that it outputs will be:

My Walmart is worse than that. They didn't have any price tags at all. Just video screens with AI avatars of a guy in baggy pants sitting cross-legged on a rug.

When I walk by, he says "Look at my cotton swabs! I offer you the best cotton swabs in the land!"

I say: "Well, how much to they cost?"

He squints at me, looks me up and down for a long while, then says: "For you........ I give to you seven hundred and fifty swabs for two pieces of silver only. Believe me when I say you will search this entire kingdom and not find a better deal!"

The conversation only seems unnatural because they didn't use the right avatar.

If you choose the "Max Headroom" avatar, then everything will look and feel exactly as you would expect. Moreover, the dystopian vibe he gives off will be a perfect fit with the current state of the world.

Yes, certainly; no one doubts that. The difference is that in 1945, physicists were, broadly speaking, building a bomb based on a complex formula, and they controlled its detonation. The bomb was powerful and difficult to build, but it remained inert as long as nobody triggered it.

From the very beginnings of LLMs (see Wolfram’s article in particular), mathematicians were already being outstripped by the capabilities of these models. Yes, the results made sense as a consequence of how the system had been programmed, but they were far more sophisticated and relevant than anyone had expected. Faced with the billions upon billions of combinations produced by the ultra-complex networks automatically constructed during training, the quality of these results was, even then, inexplicable.

That’s the difference: with the bomb, we built an object; with AI, we are building intelligence. And that intelligence, which is increasingly surpassing us, is also becoming increasingly difficult to control.

The problem isn't what he says, but the fact that he is taken seriously despite what he says.
But unfortunately, because of his position as a state actor, what he says can only be taken seriously.
History will judge those hypocrites who failed to dare to react courageously in the face of this circus.

And?
They are no less responsible. Entrusting a deadly war to an AI is reckless and irresponsible.
Hiding behind “it wasn’t us, it was the AI” afterward is pure cowardice and a shocking lack of empathy that deserves to be prosecuted.

Wrong again.

Moreover, many of the big complex systems I've worked on were big and complex mainly because OOP nitwits had designed them. They often didn't understand how computers actually work, lost sight of the fact that they were writing a computer program, and spewed out frameworks that filled countless gigabytes of resident memory with endlessly deep layers of nothingburger abstractions. Maybe that didn't matter so much when memory was cheap, but that's no longer the case.

If you think that there's only one way to deal with large data sets, you're a just noob that needs more experience before spouting your theories.

C++ is just as much of a sieve as C, only more obtuse.

"Object models" are an anti-feature.

The ideal for memory safety is to have an air-tight pressure vessel.

With C, you're starting that task with a colander. You've managed to fill two of the colander's holes with silicone caulk. Congratulations.