13 comments

  • socializer 8 minutes ago

    I have some sympathy for Anthropic here because I've seen the headlines after OpenAI failed to report a shooter in a similar situation. So from their perspective, it's damned-if-you-don't, damned-if-you-do.

    However, people need to get it in their heads that they're not chatting with their secret BFF, they're chatting with Big Tech. Before LLMs, Big Tech had no way to scrutinize the bulk of what was going on within their services, so you could have a secret hate diary in Google Docs. Now, everything you say or write can be automatically screened for red flags on a planetary scale, and probably will be because that's what the regulators and "concerned citizens" will demand. In a couple of years, you'll be biting your tongue a lot more often in private chats.

  • quadhome 8 minutes ago

    It is unlawful for any person to send, post, or transmit, or procure the sending, posting, or transmission of, a writing or other record, including an electronic record, in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person, when in such writing or record the person makes a threat to: (a) Kill or to do bodily harm to another person; or (b) Conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism.

    — via https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Disp...

    The DA is serious about "in any matter."

      tkel a few seconds ago

      Except if you're one of the "warfighters" that Anthropic supports

  • thih9 3 minutes ago

    In any case this is proof that law and negative PR can influence tech companies, including frontier AI providers.

  • Muromec a minute ago

    They are good at keeping notes on your criminal conspiracy

  • altmanaltman 25 minutes ago

    > Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism. The communication must be made in a manner in which another person may view it.

    Thought crimes are real when you're sharing your thoughts with Claude

      foolfoolz 14 minutes ago
        danpalmer 8 minutes ago

        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).

        JumpCrisscross 6 minutes ago

        > “written and shared” is illegal all over

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

      Guvante 17 minutes ago

      Auditing logs is a crazy interpretation of "another person may view it"

        danpalmer 13 minutes ago

        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.

          jimbob45 7 minutes ago

          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).

          bossyTeacher 9 minutes ago

          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.