Maybe it comes out in their menses. If so, maybe blood letting or donation might have health benefits. Wouldn’t that be a lovely pro-social nudge.

Being a citizen is totally overrated unless you have a lawn that needs blowing and qualify for social security. I imagine many 49ers felt the same way.

What?

This seems to corroborate the recent controversial claims that American workers do not possess the aptitudes needed to succeed in the 21st century. If only we could have gotten more children to learn to code. Sigh.

Why isn’t Anthropic held liable for crimes committed with their product? I feel totally befuddled as to why that is not the conversation, but rather Anthropic is doing a victory lap like they are the good guys despite their product enabling widespread fraud while they amass outrageous, undeserved, profits. Why is Anthropic not liable?

Because deciding how much culpability they have is not a solved problem.

Thanks for responding. Solving it will involve public discourse. The negative externality will not be forever ignored and frantic, knee-jerk, legislative or judicial solutions are rarely optimal. Everyone, including Anthropic, benefits from starting the culpability discussion now, ideally in a context just like this. Maybe that’s exactly what Anthropic is doing by framing this news as “we stopped some cybercrime” rather than “we were involved in some cybercrime.” But smart people shouldn’t fall for such a blatant shifting of corporate liability onto the public, imo, and that’s why I’m confused. I must be missing something fundamental.

What kind of solution do you foresee here?

Well, if it were not for the fact that our two party system is controlled by donors and lobbyists I would hope for a legislative solution. If your product is used to defraud people, you have to reimburse the victims seems like a reasonable sort of law to enact. Such legislation would encourage companies to do more than give vague lip service to “guardrails.” I’ll admit that I’m not an anarchocapitalist who thinks we need to put all our resources, and the resources of future generations via overspending, into building ever more impactful AI, so maybe I don’t belong here. The ai worshippers have been making claims for several years now about ai curing cancer and solving all our problems: where’s the beef?

Many say the same about remote viewing but results matter.

If remote viewing would be a thing, spy networks would not be necessary and encryption would not matter.

If people believed remote viewing was real, law enforcement would say they had a psychic witness their suspect commit the crime.

It is a thing. It’s not very robust.