Comment One of the first, but hardly the last (Score 1) 67
Comment Re:Eh, well, why not? (Score 2) 192
Comment What did you expect? (Score 3, Insightful) 34
Comment Re:Where does it go? (Score 1) 92
Comment Re:I asked Claude's opinion (Score 1) 403
Comment Re:ELIZA (Score 1) 403
Comment Re:So then (Score 1) 48
How does a chatbot know what is a delusion and what isn't?
How does a delusional human distinguish between good and bad advice from a machine that is prone to hallucinate?
Comment Re:Here we go again (Score 1) 85
Comment AI features? (Score 2) 81
The company also highlights some of the benefits of the switch, including improved security, RCS support, AI features, and better multi-device connectivity.
Wait, AI features are a benefit? Haha, no.
Comment They bothered to ask Claude? (Score 1) 79
Indeed, when prosecutors tested Claude by asking whether it could give legal advice, the bot advised them to "consult with a qualified attorney."
It's astounding they bothered asking Claude that question. They are pre-supposing Claude is qualified to answer the question in the first place. What would they have done if Claude had said yes? Claude is no more qualified than a toaster to give legal advice. If it's a question of legality, then Claude is *not* the one to ask; the court should know the answer to that question without having to consult anybody but the current laws.
Comment Re:weak (Score 1) 54
Comment Re:Remember XP SP2? (Score 1) 102
Comment Re:weak (Score 0) 54
Two words: Personal responsibility
Comment I wrote a few lines of code... (Score 1) 80
See how stupid this sounds?
AI agents, regardless of their sophistication, are not employees. They are tools to be used by employees, even if only one employee is using them. Hell, even if an AI agent controls another AI agent, they're both tools, and neither is an actual employee, even if they do work that was once done by an employee.