order-matters

its a common pattern in todays society. a perceived problem with the system that is actually a problem with the people running that system leading to the design of a new system that somehow wont allow people to run it and cause the same problems. but then you need to reinvent solutions to every other problem the system solves and learned to solve over its operation

there is almost certainly an easier way to fix the problems people are having by making adjustments to the current banking systems, including support for the growth of different banks that simply act more ethically.

The problem is that you may want to sell your house to someone and be denied permission to do so. However, i have not seen any stories of that actually happening to anyone so idk

the pillaging will continue to wherever people go. the only reason we can avoid it is because others are sacrificing by being subject to it.

no one answers their phone now, and as such legitimate businesses rarely do cold calls as a main lead. they find you online instead. they buy data to figure out your email and habits. etc.

once the public internet becomes unbearable they will adapt. i dont know how and if i did i wouldnt give them the idea without working for it, but all the effort put into manipulating social media sites will absoutely go somewhere else once those sites dry up from real human signals

quote requests are about to skyrocket

just because you can optimize your pricing for maximum value extraction from your customer doesnt mean you have to

oh nice thats not bad at all

what kind of storage impact do you have?

Was the timeline an artistic idea of the creator or a reaction by a brand to fulfill a customer service request?

not sure if right for your project, but an idea ive had in the past is that the organizations should have the jobs filled by people from the places they are organizing support for.

too often the work involved in taking it to an organization level is written off by the doners, and / or taken advantage of by the org. but renting a building and hiring people to take calls, perform accounting, etc has real cost that cuts into donations but it is also an area of job creation. Those jobs created, imo, are incredibly important and when they are given to people in the donating country it turns into mostly just economic activity in the doner country run on donations with just whatever amount is leftover going to the actual aid. of which, without any outright corruption, people are always eager to spend that money to make the organization side of things better.. or invest it into the organization under the guise (genuine or not) of scaling the organization such that donating a bit less today leads to more donations tomorrow. and then it becomes like any other business mostly running on debt and the actual donations are like a material cost that is constantly pressured to be cut down to pay back debts

the unspoken permanent wrench in the gears lies in chaos theory. models always have some level of consolidation of reality that gets treated in blocks. While this has intuitive inaccuracies like rounding errors, edge cases, and such, we also know reality often shows emergent behavior from chaotic interactions in a way only understandable after it's actually happened. these could be erorrs that could completely break the models relevance

After observing the emergent behavior, we can often then incorporate it into the model by breaking up prior consolidations into more parts, but the fundamental problem still remains. This makes models for things that arent part of a relatively rapid feedback loop for model improvement (like climate change) to be very vulnerable unknowns. thats not to say they are completely useless, but it can very much take away the weight behind any specificity of the models results, and should open up a second conversation about the direction in which the model might be expected to fail.

Additionally, when creating models that involve human behavior you can appeal to game theory, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc but ultimately chaos will be in full force. now with AI it is going to become a factor amongst automation as well in a way it previously was not. there is no practical way to model how the weights of neural networks might act unexpectedly in various contexts.

all this to say models are not often that great at giving useful predictions as much as they are great at building foundations of understanding of relationships in complex/complicated and what "clean" situations might look like, which can then be taken into consideration of what reality is likely to look like and happen. this distinction is important because currently, automation tools and AI lack that final chaotic adjustment that astute humans are able to apply. Ai has gotten very good at making complicated models but it ultimately is, by design imo whether intentional or not, limited in the same way models themselves are.

that final adjustment to make real world decisions and have personal accountability is more rooted in beliefs/feelings than it is in model outputs, albeit the model outputs help to refine it.

i think its a war and the good side has an advantage so if we apply ourselves and fight the fight then ai for good for humanity will win out. if we allow fear to make us hesitant and avoid the fight while bad actors continue then they will win it.

as for a basis for this theory, i think being a good person is harder than a bad person (in laymans terms). therefor the long history of evolution of good and bad people together has had a greater competitive pressure on good people than bad ones thus forging 'stronger' people under that pressure. in practical everyday circumstances good people are bearing more on their mind and so there is a sort of competitive equity between the two groups, which is related to why good people had to evolve 'stronger' to keep up with that equity.

so in an even playing ground where raw skill is needed, i think the most skilled will usually be people coming from a long line of higher moral standards. the tactical advantages of psychopathy are, however, always a curveball

ah, okay - yeah kind of a 'shocked pikachu face' then. So maybe more of a PSA is needed that what you say to the model and your uploaded files is akin to speaking all the content out loud to the company hosting the model.

I dont really like this direction but it is what it is right now

>Sandboxes limit what the agent can access on the host machine as well as the network and public internet.

this is exactly what I meant. I am presuming the danger is AI reacting to personal notes that it reads on your computer, like a diary, and you should not allow the tools to have access to those documents.

Another way to interpret this is that they are legally presuming that you already have sandboxed their product and anything it sees or has access to is intentional.

Any failure to understand what it can access or what it has permission to see from the user's end is presumably not their problem. Regardless of what the user specifically asks of the tool.

the argument to be made is that allowing anthropic to see it constitutes sending the threat.

sandbox your ai.