victor9000

Could this not just be a playlist?

Interfaces and their proven abstractions are highly valuable. The implementations themselves, however, are completely replaceable.

I’m not sure if this is the right solution, but we clearly need better tools for the legal space. Anthropic's recent policy update makes this abundantly clear:

“When our products are used in ways that can affect someone's health, legal rights, finances, livelihood, or access to essential services, we require there to be a qualified ‘human in the loop’ (that is, someone who has the authority to review and, if necessary, change Claude’s recommendations), and for the individual affected to be told that AI was used.”

Something as common as a family law case has the potential to affect all of the above. Now imagine being a petitioner, respondent, paralegal, or other 3rd party using Claude to review a draft document only to find out that Anthropic has sent your entire file to opposing counsel.

It sounds egregious, but Anthropic is clearly stating they will use their own judgment to control what people can do with its product, and that they will treat customer data as if it's theirs to disseminate. So there's a massive opportunity for an unbiased tool willing to fill this void.

using jev is a significant step towards using jev

I ask coworkers point blank to send me a non-llm version of their slop sagas. The initial exchange can be a bit awkward, particularly with new hires, but consistently asking for human prose has worked for me.

It's also well established that an algorithm or architecture alone are not enough to produce a useful model. The same architecture can produce vastly different results depending on the training data, post-training, harness, etc.

The fact that something like this is so widely celebrated shows just how user hostile anthropic has become.

I wonder if this is willful sabotage on the part of the model. In other words, if you ask the model to craft a defense for a morally questionable case, will the model execute the defense in good faith? Or will it apply a training or system prompt bias in subtle ways?

In Perplexity's case everything is getting routed through the user's browser, so there is no server to server communication between Perplexity and Amazon, thus no CFAA unauthorized access was established. However, Anthropic and OpenAI did not use the pattern of routing through authorized parties, so I don't think this opinion gives them any cover.

US enterprise customers aren't going to convert to overseas models, average consumers might though.

The hardware is not open

Accomplishments like these are standards we should use for when to build someone a statue

Yes, they haven't advertised a pending price jump in the near future.