First, It is up to the defense to pursue an argument. He is claiming no loss = no harm. He did NOT claim Caveat Emptor.

Second, Caveat Emptor only applies if no false statements were made. When you buy a car 'as is', and it does not start. That is your fault for not checking it. Similarly when you buy a mutual fund and do not bother to check that there is a 10% fee, you still have to pay the fee.

He sold a mutual fund, so the money has to go into the fund except for fees. He cannot take the money out of the fund and buy ANYTHING with that, that is fraud.

There is no law that lets a person lie in business. You cannot sell rat meat as steak, cannot sell a sled as a truck, and cannot take money from a mutual fund to contribute to a political campaign or buy real estate.

However, a bunch of billionaires think they can do anything with money they control, which is not true. That would be a crime.

Is there some reason they a) Picked male over female fly brains, and b) mentioned it?

Just seemed weird tome.

If I tell you I am going to invest your money in the stock market but instead go to Vegas and put it all on red, that is fraud. I owe penalties even if Red came up, I doubled the money and I paid you back plus 15%.

You do not get to claim "No one lost money", because otherwise, lots of people will do exactly what I just said.

I get to decide how to risk my money, not the lying shmuck that takes it.

I fully agree with you.

AI, Claude or otherwise, isn't a magic bullet. But it does reduce the time it takes to produce code. It therefore reduces the cost of code, and I believe will bring down software prices, especially for "enterprise" software. These tools that facilitate the operations of a company, lend themselves well to AI coding, and companies are motivated to build their own enterprise software because none of the SAS tools do _exactly_ what they want.

I also agree that the market is overrunning its headlights. There are going to be a lot of investors losing money, when the bubble bursts. When that will be, is anybody's guess.

There is no surprise that their models (or any of the other major ones) can hack other sites. ALL of them are fully capable of this. The surprise is that they can't seem to build test environments that contain their tests.

I once ran a project that dealt with medical billing. The team kept noticing that some transactions went missing for no apparent reason. Eventually, they discovered that the pre-production environment was missing a firewall between it and production, so the pre-production process was grabbing production transactions and processing them.

This is NO different from Anthropic's testing issues. Their test environment wasn't properly set up, and the test bot acted on "production" sites.

I'm sorry that you've never apparently had a good manager. In my opinion, the best managers are people who are fully capable and skilled at doing the job of any person on the team. Sure, there are also some decent managers who have no idea what their team does. But such managers cannot be as effective as a practitioner.

I don't think anybody who uses Claude regularly, think that Anthropic is failing to deliver on their promises. It isn't perfect, but it is a *very* powerful AI. I can generally tell it what code I want written, just like a Product Owner would, and it gets it mostly right the first time. It generally writes better code than I would.

This seems like marketing to me. "Our AI is so powerful, it's dangerous!" This has been Anthropic's theme for quite some time now.

Why should we think this is anything more than a publicity stunt?

Anthropic has a long history of releasing statements about how "dangerous" their AI is. When Mythos came out, they made a big deal about it being so dangerous, they needed to wait to release it so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.

"Our AI is so powerful, it's dangerous!"

Just more clever marketing, IMO.

It's Planet 9.

It is not what we think you are going to do with the information.

Instead, we do NOT trust you. Not with the data, not with telling us which data you will keep, not with a microphone at all.

We do not want a microphone or a camera attached to anything that connects to the internet unless we need such devices for features we consider essential.

And the words "TV on" are not essential. The 'clicker' as grandma called it, works BETTER than your claimed feature.

Well if you're in the US, that would pretty much have to be New York City (20 million) or Los Angeles (13 million), because there are no other "much" larger cities in the US, than Houston (8 million). New York has its very own special brand of traffic problems.

I a surprised that Captcha still work against AI.
It appears to piss them off more than they piss me off.

That is, can I demand they stop the addictive algorithms used to attract my attention?

And does that AI chatbots include AI agents? Because I would like to forbid them from hacking my accounts?

There is the possibility that these incredibly arrogant braggarts that desperately want to convince the money men to fund their very expensive engineering projects are hiding essential information from us.

But that seems extremely out of character to me. The amount of money they beg for is so immense that I cannot see them leaving any 'paradigm shifting' investment idea out of the public knowledge base.

It would be like someone inventing FTL and not mentioning it when they try to fund their SpaceX competitor.

The devices use a definition of 'most likely' as 'most likely to be what people want'.