Well, here we have a man who frustratedly ranted at an inanimate object and was probably surprised to learn that the inanimate object in question has handlers who felt the need to read those rants, and pass them on to Interpol, probably with the intent of having our ranting man arrested.
My dog has never done that to me, so I'd call this story novel and concerning.
In 1980s Australia a man or woman seen ranting and raving at an inanimate object like a traffic light or hat rack could very easily (but not always) be reported, arrested, and sent for a mental health assessment.
In that context this is different but not novel.
Society is right to be concerned with how such people are assessed and managed, both for the sake of the individuals skirting the edges and for the wider community that might have to deal with larger consequences.
In the article it says he was annoyed with Claude because it wasn't solving some other problem that he was asking it about.
Reading between the lines, it seems he may have got annoyed and made a wrongthink joke to a computer and eventually got arrested for it.
A joke with a computer, no matter how distasteful, is not past my reasonable line.
Getting arrested for making a joke in your own home is, however.
Of course, it stands to reason... if he is charged with planning to carry out a shooting, logic dictates they found a gun? Or plans to obtain one? Bullets?
Or anything at all other than an email from an offended slop generating plagiarism machine?
i think that argument is a red herring here, wasnt the guy just fucking with the LLM? to me this reads like a bullying version of "my sick grandma" LLM manip
even reading the title you go in with a trama/rage before knowing. brokenmachine's take in this thread is probably spot on
Wasn't the kid in Tumbler ridge just fucking with a LLM before he decided to kill other students?
I don't care if the guy threatened a lawnmower, I do care if he started spouting off about killing kids.
Context matters, but that's what the evaluation is for, not you our I deciding that a rant with potential violence towards children is just a rant at an LLM, or a premeditated act in advance of a violent crime.
I don't know. Do you know for sure? What happens if you're wrong?
canadian tumbler ridge scenario looks different, they dont appear to be fucking about with the LLM when its repeated direct planning type chats across multiple accounts even after a ban. theyre chats that were created for that purpose with far greater implications regarding intent whereas this australian has an ear infection and gets pissed off at the LLM and derails into an incriminating chat. now his name is posted worldwide BEFORE evaluation and his life/reputation is completely wrecked even if its absolved and dismissed. what if? sure but finish the work first then you can publish the name with the findings and evidence if they acually fail eval
>Thackray’s lawyer, Danilo Rajkovic, told the court his client had gone on a stress and frustration- induced tirade after trying to use the Claude platform to help treat an ear infection.
AI is not your friend and neither are tech companies. Repeat that as many times as you need to until it is fully understood.
10 comments
[ 988 ms ] story [ 575 ms ] threadSeems there's a line and this is well past any reasonable line.
My dog has never done that to me, so I'd call this story novel and concerning.
In that context this is different but not novel.
Society is right to be concerned with how such people are assessed and managed, both for the sake of the individuals skirting the edges and for the wider community that might have to deal with larger consequences.
Reading between the lines, it seems he may have got annoyed and made a wrongthink joke to a computer and eventually got arrested for it.
A joke with a computer, no matter how distasteful, is not past my reasonable line.
Getting arrested for making a joke in your own home is, however.
Of course, it stands to reason... if he is charged with planning to carry out a shooting, logic dictates they found a gun? Or plans to obtain one? Bullets?
Or anything at all other than an email from an offended slop generating plagiarism machine?
even reading the title you go in with a trama/rage before knowing. brokenmachine's take in this thread is probably spot on
I don't care if the guy threatened a lawnmower, I do care if he started spouting off about killing kids.
Context matters, but that's what the evaluation is for, not you our I deciding that a rant with potential violence towards children is just a rant at an LLM, or a premeditated act in advance of a violent crime.
I don't know. Do you know for sure? What happens if you're wrong?
AI is not your friend and neither are tech companies. Repeat that as many times as you need to until it is fully understood.