upvote

points

by altmanaltman15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Guvante15 hours ago|
next
[-]
Auditing logs is a crazy interpretation of "another person may view it"
reply
upvoteby danpalmer15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I wonder if "criminal intent" may be missing here given that most people probably operate under the assumption that Anthropic are not reading their messages.
reply
upvoteby bossyTeacher15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think people have a binary understanding on this. Someone is either reading their messages or not. While the reality is that all the messages are read by a machine (not unlike GMail and Outlook) and anything suspicious gets flagged up so a human can read it. This obscure the concept of "reading" as most laypeople understand it.

Summary: don't type in Claude anything you wouldn't like a human to read.

reply
upvoteby jimbob4515 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It tells you exactly what it does with your information if you ask it, including this exact scenario, and has for at least four months now (when I asked).
reply
upvoteby calgoo15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yes but you are someone (i assume because you are on HN) that at least understands this point. There are A LOT of people that use it as their confidant, expecting it to be private. There is a massive education issue going on as its not in the interest of these Corpos to make you fear sharing all your details with them. Because, then you wont get Dot or whatever Anthropic comes up with and share all your personal info with it.
reply
upvoteby danpalmer15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You're not wrong, and it may come down to this in court, but there's a difference between what people think happens, or the reasonable expectations, and what actually happens, and I think it's important to recognise that difference and why it comes about.

I don't think someone is an idiot for thinking that the information they type into their private Claude account is private. I also don't think people are idiots for thinking their phone is listening to them and giving them targeted advertising based on that. Both are reasonable deductions from their lived experiences. Both are wrong.

reply
upvoteby rimliu15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Should CEOs of Antrophic and OpenAI be reported too then? They cannot stop saying that AI will destroy humans.
reply
upvoteby Madmallard13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
laws for thee and not for me
reply
upvoteby foolfoolz15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
this has nothing to do with claude. “thought” is fine. “written and shared” is illegal all over

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/everyone-deserves-to-die...

https://www.wdsu.com/article/maryland-high-school-student-ch...

https://www.pinellassheriff.gov/21-023-deputies-arrest-pinel...

reply
upvoteby danpalmer15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think it's a reasonable point to make. Writing things down is a part of "thought" for many, including those who keep diaries/journals. If you write in a private journal you do so with the expectation that is not shared, and that wouldn't seem to break this law (with my naive reading).
reply
upvoteby TheDong15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean, at this point it's pretty well known that all tech services will be hacked by fable, anthropic themselves promised it, so writing your journal in google docs or claude or a txt document on your laptop or such is the same as releasing it publicly yeah?

If it were written on paper, and only in a room with no phones or cameras so fable couldn't hack it, then I think you wouldn't be sharing it.

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> “written and shared” is illegal all over

I think it’s valid to ask if tapping something into Claude is legitimately sharing a threat.

I don’t think it is. I also think the sheriff could have found more-substantial evidence if she was actually planning domestic terrorism.

That said, if the shooting happened and we were looking at this from before? It’s a tough balance without an easy answer.

reply
upvoteby lores8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think the zero-risk approach common nowadays is insanely corrosive to democracy and freedom. If a million people fantasise about shooting the sheriff, and one ever goes on to do it, I don't believe avoiding it warrants creating an apparatus of mass surveillance. After all, if people were really serious about zero murder, the only practical solution would be to lock up everyone. Some (most?) tradeoffs have exponential costs at the limit and we/lawmakers should recognise that.
reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> If a million people fantasise about shooting the sheriff

I think it’s fair to pre-identify folks who fantasise about shooting anyone. It’s a small fraction of the population that looks into logistics versus making offhand comments.

reply