I don’t and wouldn’t bother, but I don’t see the point. If this is a sign of sociopathy, removing the account doesn’t cure the mental illness. If it’s being fed back into training data, stop. This seems needless, though it’s likely to lead to increasingly strict but completely vague usage requirements. How do I know exactly what behavior falls under this? So I have to over-moderate just in case.

Not in this case but this could lead to that sort of thing.

I bought and needed a hybrid. I had a 212 mile round trip to work when I bought my Volt. Today I have a quarter tank of gas I’m afraid will go stale. Winter is coming, though, and I’ll need the engine for heat and because the mileage drops to about 20 — less if I get on the highway.

I’m still leery about range and heat issues, but at least my wife bought a Tahoe so we have distance trips covered. That frees me up to buy an EV next go round and I guess if the heat sucks it’ll be a decent fair weather car.

The article very much states that it is in fact illegal to write down a threat under Florida law.

With the intent that it may be seen by another person. That’s not the same. It’s not illegal to write a threat in your diary.

That being said the summary doesn’t include the fact that the following day she told Claude she had bought a gun and this was their “last chance,” and only then did Anthropic call the cops.

That seems exactly the sort of situation folks have been criticizing AI companies for not summoning help, and makes it seem far less likely that they called the cops over angry venting, but an actual intent to harm.

Writing a threat is not illegal. Hell people vent all the time, threatening to do things they know damn well they never will. The law says transmitting a threat to another person is illegal because it can be used as intimidation or conspiracy. I think there’s a damn good argument that she didn’t knowingly transmit it to anyone. She thought she was writing in confidence to a non-person. And if it’s not her first time expressing outrage to AI, she would know it would only try to deescalate her.

Who knows how the case will go. I can see it going either way — probably depending on how much money she has. Laws are going to have to catch up to technology in this case, and it’s going to be bumpy. I definitely agree with erring on the side of caution. Private, local AI is far safer, but of course it’s less capable for now.

I love the quiet irony you employed here. I know nothing about Greta Hopkins other than she’s a village-ruining whore who should suffer for all the pain she’s caused!

I don’t know her, I don’t know the village, and I don’t know you, but that bitch needs to go down. Thanks, social media!

I’m going to break this up into two. Feedback on content and feedback on style and presentation.

Content

LLMs didn’t create cognitive debt, but they do make it worse. Cognitive debt is paid every time a team member leaves or is promoted to a non-contributing role.

The interesting thing to me is that, in order for an LLM project to be successful, all of that cognition has to be done up front, and written down. If done well, you aren’t relying on the LLM to figure anything out, and it’s just rote execution by a simpler model. The build process then exposes holes in the initial design which must be plugged within the documentation until all of the cognition has been performed and the LLM can execute.

The beauty of that model is that you can be 2/3 of the way through a project, realize you missed something foundational and rearchitect and rebuild the whole project in hours instead of weeks. LLM saves no time or money if you have perfect planning and execution skills, but it does enable you to make significant pivots far faster than a human team.

One of my teams just finished a project that took two massive pivots just as design was finished and execution was underway. The result was all the time explaining v1 was wasted and left confusion for the developers, v2 was continuing to be developed even after v3 was provided, and months of time were wasted understanding and building the wrong thing. This was a six month effort when it could’ve been two.

Now, with a real developer, they eventually build their own cognition and their own mental model and are then capable of cognitive work — LLMs can assist documenting the cognitive work, but they are piss poor at performing it. LLMs can’t cognate and they can’t replace developers — but they can change the shape of development work to be more about requirements analysis and architecture, and if used well can improve efficiency of teams.

I could write a whole article on that — I could write a book — but I don’t have time and AI would completely fuck it up, so it’s just in my head, still taking shape.

Presentation

I might have more specific feedback on your points, but I’d forgotten them by the time I got to the end.

I’d suggest moving your analysis of the examples to their own post which you can then link to support your points. The concept you are trying to convey isn’t difficult, but this article is about 10x the length it needs to be. You basically write well enough, and you attempt to engage the reader well, but this article is like having a chat with someone and they just launch into an hour long impromptu lecture and giving you no chance to absorb or respond.

By breaking it up into smaller chunks, you can give a reader an opportunity to engage with an idea fully, and then they can decide if they want to follow the links to read your takes on this project or the, or simply accept a one sentence reference in the primary article at face value.

There is writing out there so enchanting that you don’t mind investing the time because the reading is as much entertainment as it is learning. This article aspires to be that, but isn’t there.