aesthesia

Does this change your estimation of whether they will keep logs?

Seems like this is a signal that they in fact take the privacy concerns seriously?

Yes, this is why we decided to give everyone their own personal mini-nuke. They're responsible for the consequences of how they use it, and since control is decentralized, everyone is incentivized to be careful and avoid dangerous scenarios. This is a big improvement over the mutually assured destruction situation during the Cold War, which was a result of the centralization of power.

Is anyone actually making this argument, or is this conversation happening inside your head?

If things were implemented that way, you would see vastly more complaints about overeager refusals. For at least some deployments, the safety classifiers are based on internal LLM activations, so the input does get processed by the model.

> if these labs would be fair enough to humanity as a whole to provide the raw scans after the process is completed

Unfortunately, this would get them an even bigger copyright smackdown than they've already received.

I don't understand. Why would you give this advice?

There may come a point where they decide they need to do that. As it stands, it appears that they believe they can get the necessary level of security without physical air-gapping, which is likely substantially more costly (especially in terms of iteration speed).

Who's acting like they're surprised here? Not OpenAI. Not the original commenter. I think you're reading something that isn't there.

I'm not sure what you want. This is explicitly an exercise in hardening the systems you're complaining weren't sufficiently hardened!

It's not hard to imagine that two agents that share model weights might naturally settle on the same protocol, even without needing to communicate beforehand. Besides, this is a red-teaming exercise meant to surface potential vulnerabilities. You want to test your defenses in scenarios where the attacker has advantage in order to make sure they're sufficiently robust.

Lots of crimes are irreversible, though, and the justice system handles them fine.

OK, you got me to look at the context:

> Before we can align a model with human values, we must consider what those values should be. In 2023, we defined our intentions and goals for Claude’s behavior in a constitution, which we have refined over time. In January 2026, we published a new version under an open license so others could adapt it.

Seems like they're pointing out a pretty uncontroversial fact: if you're building a model and want it to be aligned with some set of values, one of the first things you need to do is determine the set of values. So are you arguing that (1) Anthropic shouldn't be trying to align models, (2) Anthropic shouldn't be trying to build models at all, (3) the values described in the relevant documents are bad, (4) there should have been a democratic process determining the values that Anthropic would be allowed to try to instill in their models, or something else?

Are you sure the "we" there is Anthropic, or is it humanity as a whole?