suttontom

It would benefit many people (especially Anthropic employees) if, after an LLM gives you a response like this, to go into a different session and ask another LLM if the explainer is correct. Not just so that you hopefully get the correct information, but also to see how easily fooled you can be by a plausible-looking, confident response about some code that you have no reference for. Use 5.5 on any thinking level, you will encounter this. The spaghetti mess that is CC likely makes this more of an issue.

Thousands of websites like Garry Tan's amateur pile of garbage?

I'm trying to gather the paperwork to apply for citizenship in another country. I gave Opus 5.5 everything I've assembled so far (PDFs, PNGs of birth/death certificates, etc.) and asked it for next steps and it:

* Got the answer wrong, because it neglected to search for or take into account a new law passed a few years ago.

* Missed obvious things in the provided documents, such as names and dates.

* Gave contradictory information, e.g. telling me that one step might not be ready for a year, but that I should get some things done now because they expire six months after they're released. It neglected to make the connection that if I can't start something for a year, then it would be pointless to start getting paperwork ready for that thing right now if the paperwork expires in 6 months.

I use AI coding tools a lot. I thought this would be a slam dunk for agents in 2026 and it was worse than useless.

The comment you're responding to has two sentences separated by a period. You can use that as an indication that the two issues being pointed out are, in fact, separate things. Do you understand now?

What's being implied is that your nefarious company is building another product that exists solely to suck up people's attention and time in order to build a profile of them to sell them garbage that they don't need and use their personal data to manipulate them.

I don't know how anyone can use Muse. It's like taking everything that Facebook has had to guess and infer about you over the years using various analytics and instead just dumping it directly into a chat bot and giving the company everything it wants. Zuckerberg and his soulless C-suite must be licking their lips.

More like, if someone told you their workout program that takes 5 minutes a day lets them lift the same weights as an average Olympic weightlifter, you'd ask to see the results.

Edit: Deleted.

1. Whether what he did is considered "harassment" is debatable. 2. Because it looks like an everyday object and not a camera? If you design a necklace or hat that films people but displays a small light (which can easily be covered up), the vast majority of people will not know they are being filmed. 3. He went up to people in public and asked them questions. Filming their bodies and asking them to turn around was weird and inappropriate but demonstrates the point he is trying to make, which is that this is inherently a bad product that films people with a camera but it doesn't look like a camera, which people naturally find deceptive and creepy, and they don't want to be around it.

It's incredibly hypocritical. It's like working at Flock and complaining about being filmed on a Flock camera. Or working for a company that sells cars that emit a loud, annoying sound and complaining about those cars in your neighborhood. Or making devices for children but banning your own children from using them because the devices are harmful. They clearly don't care that the product their company is selling can legally (in most places) be used to film people in public until they themselves are filmed in public. How is that not hypocrisy?

Hahahaha, "recording things in good faith." What an insane statement to make to paint this guy in a bad light. Should people also be concerned about walking in good faith, or eating their lunch in good faith? Meta created these creep glasses so people could do exactly what this guy is doing: film people in public (without them knowing). There is no "bad faith" when you're just literally doing what the product is for.

They could try just being normal. There's a middle between being unfuckable and hosting rape gangbangs with 40 people. This article actually does a great job describing how the gross, unfuckable nerds are now the ones pushing all of this poly sex cult stuff.

What's old is new again: earth-shattering, never-before-seen company ends up making money off ads and its main product ends up being a developer tool (Codex).