BTW, as kind of a follow-up to this, I think the most important finding to report--for those who only use one model, as many people seem to--is just how much more often Claude seems to be extremely confidently (and even insufferably) wrong than any of the other three big models (all of which I use quite often... yet I only pull out Claude when I've given up hope in a problem and are looking for out-of-the-box brainstorming).
And like, it does this despite it speaking in extremely dense math, which both makes it sound correct and requires a lot more effort to prove when it is wrong... yet, it isn't actually correct more often, and so that time sink just isn't worth the benefit. I then think many people--including people who can speak math (as can I)--just stop bothering to check everything, as if you come across a human who speaks like this it probably does correlate with slow and careful thought that helps prevent errors.
Instead, Claude has the mistake rate of a somewhat accelerated beginner impossibly combined with the language of an expert professor; and we as humans just aren't good at that combination: it becomes very dangerous and makes it take longer to spot its egregious mistakes and trained-in biases. If you have to use Claude, I thereby claim you really need to have a team of not-Claudes to help insulate you from this, and Gemini (while being a bit senile) is a lot more collaborative and approaches problems in ways that makes it harder to get tricked.
(To translate this into more of an engineering analogy: Claude always feels to me like the engineer who put more effort into learning how to program in functional languages than into how to actually develop working code, and then confidently presents you answers in Haskell or Lisp that never quite work. To find their errors is then very costly. In contrast, Gemini feels more like a Java or Go developer who knows they are a cog... that's helpful! <- Which maybe just goes to show that AI has finally turned me into a manager, omg.)
Doesn't it feel like the exact opposite? If you care a lot about the AI being a vengeful god, you do not do what OpenAI and Anthropic are doing. These companies only pay lip service to the idea of that aspect of AI safety in the hope that they can use it to regulate open source AI out of existence.
Instead, they are focused on stuff like "can I ask the AI to help me build a nuclear bomb" or "is the AI willing to generate pornographic stories", which is neither trying to protect us from unleashing a vengeful god NOR preventing (in any honest way) the today-level problems you (very correctly) bring up.
This same level of "oops" in the backend causes users to accidentally see or delete other user's photos, which is definitely a categorically worse scenario.
If you merely deactivate your email address rather than closing your account or changing your notification settings or whatever, then the next time a legitimate service goes to send you a legitimate email that you asked for, it will bounce. In some sense this "shouldn't matter", as in a purely P2P system the only people who would notice are the sender and Apple -- and Apple knows what is going on, so should not penalize senders the way, say, Google would if they see you sending a ton of email to their domains and they all bounce -- but people tend to use services to help send email and centrally pool their reputation (such as mailchimp) and so these services themselves then watch the bounce rate of their individual customers and either charge them more or ban their access due to the bounce rate increase.
Is Apple really stupid enough that they BOUNCE emails after you deactivate, rather than just silent discard? What's the point of bouncing unwanted emails these days? It's not like these bounces go to humans who go "Oh, gee! This address must not work. Allow me to go and figure out how to contact him!" It's just a stream of full-on spam with completely fake return addresses, and crap from email campaign software.
And yet why are people going out of their way to send multipart emails with useless parts? Your analogy does not fit as the Amish person is potentially refusing the HTML part: I just cited my preference, confirming to the protocol, and am being actively sent garbage information as somehow someone seriously thought it was easier for them to go out of their way to give me the option and then laugh at me for making the wrong choice than to just send an email that is HTML only.
But the whole point was that it wasn't a separate role: it was a re-distribution of work so the developers were doing operations. Instead, a lot of people entirely missed the point and just renamed their ops people to devops.
Life is longer than a lot of people seem to think. I put a lot of effort into configuring vim and bash... 20 years ago maybe? And now I barely think about it, but the changes I made have made me more efficient and effective throughout those 20 years. Go ahead and put some time into figuring out how you use a tool and make scripts or aliases for using them... if you invest in good tools you will get decades of use out of, instead of chasing dumb fads, you'll just keep compounding your efficiency.
reply