Do you have any legal experience, evidence, or case history to support your perspective? You assert that the statement "Our findings reveal major technology companies simply ignore globally defined opt-out signals, raising the spectre of industrial-scale non-compliance with California requirements" is untrue -- how do you know? Do you think everything found in the discovery process would agree? Do you think a company with a history of privacy violations would actually go through with a lawsuit where they'd have to definitively prove they don't? What about proving malice, that webXray knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth? What about the risk of filing a suit where California's anti-SLAPP statue would probably apply?
I wish I'd heard about it when it was first published, it is super cool! Especially the timeline, given that it predates things like ts_zip/LLMZip (which is why I figured someone had already worked on something in the area), while being fundamentally the same mechanism. Makes sense why compression ended up being a more compelling use case though.
Whether you disagree with whether it truly aligns with their stated values, in their partnership with Palantir (making Claude available within their AI platform) they requested consistent restrictions:
> “[We will] tailor use restrictions to the mission and legal authorities of a government entity” based on factors such as “the extent of the agency’s willingness to engage in ongoing dialogue,” Anthropic says in its terms. The terms, it notes, do not apply to AI systems it considers to “substantially increase the risk of catastrophic misuse,” show “low-level autonomous capabilities,” or that can be used for disinformation campaigns, the design or deployment of weapons, censorship, domestic surveillance, and malicious cyber operations.
Anyone else having issues exporting their data from ChatGPT? I started my export in the morning, still have yet to receive an email for the download. Wanted to make sure my deleted account was included in the beans when they count them on Monday.
Typical SV/ Scam Altman tactics : technically trying to keep people from moving out of their walled prison-garden. It exemplifies how important open-standards and data export laws are.
Kinda the wrong venue for “fighting,” no? Congress is the place we decided for that, and we all abide by its laws. If Uncle Sam comes knocking, a fight just means you’re the enemy.
Absolutely not, and it's tragic that Trump has twisted your understanding of the American government so much. It's your patriotic duty to oppose even the highest ranking government officials when they want to do bad things, and neither Congress nor the Secretary of Defense have any lawful power to stop you.
reply