You don't have to assume people are going to be bad, but it's reasonable and prudent to expect it from people who have already shown themselves to be so (in this context).
I trust people until they give me cause to do otherwise.
Training on personal data people thought was going to remain private vs. stuff out in public view (copyright or not), are two different magnitudes of ethics breaches. Opt OUT instead of Opt IN for this is CRAZY in my opinion. I hope that the reddit post is WRONG on that detail but I seriously doubt it.
I asked Claude: "If a company has a privacy policy and says they will not train on your data and then decides to change the policy in order "to make the models better for everyone." What should the terms be?"
The model suggests in the first paragraph or so EXPLICIT OPT IN. Not Opt OUT
No, nbulka is correct. People should not shrug off and accept things that are wrong just because it's to be expected. It's one of the worst things you can do because as already pointed out, it just normalizes wrong.
For those who do not, or cannot, read this announcement prior to September 28th (think people in the hospital, traveling, missed an email ..) is this not a total breach of contract?
Legally, I don't understand how Anthropic's lawyers would have allowed this. Maybe I am just naively optimistic about these matters? I am a Max customer and I might leave! Talk about a "rug pull" ... and I considering moving to an inferior provider! Privacy is a fundamental human right. Please do better, we have not learned our lesson in tech or society because no one is facing any consequences.
It only applies to new conversations, and they show a popup with this info in the app. Probably as a result of the legal team considering the options you listed.
We think the universe had to "begin" because we "began" and tend to anthropomorphize. Is that necessarily true? The universe is under no obligation to have a beginning. Sail around the Earth and you might just end up right where you started.
Current observations make it likely that our observable universe expands (think "stretches"), and the expansion will continue forever.
If it's expanding, then it was smaller earlier. Asking about the far past is a natural reaction, and the Big Bang theory is a pretty good attempt at explaining that.
The Sun had to begin. At one point it was just accreting gasses, then at some point gained enough mass to ignite. People also start at some point they begin as a daughter and grow eventually into a viable life. But also our galaxies had to form before our sun. So, yes there are beginnings to things. At one point they weren’t, at another point they were.
I agree with you, though - causal explanations are compelling and confer a sense of certainty and humans seem to like that, but it doesn't make them necessary.
A steel man version of scientism by definition has to be scientism, and I imagine that looks like strict determinisn/reductionism. I imagine it would go along the lines of "we acknowledge that our theories invoke notions of probability and since don't have a better solution we should assert them as universal truths."
That just moves the problem to the definition of “metaphysical”. If a scientific theory is falsifiable, by what definition can it be considered metaphysical?
when a theory makes claims about events that fall outside of the physical system they become metaphysical:
age of the universe,
creator or not,
teleology,
interpretations of probability,
primacy of logic (are we allowing for the law of excluding middle or not)
Science doesn't do these things but scientism does.
