Anthropic banned me for "suspicious signals"(kix.codes) |
Anthropic banned me for "suspicious signals"(kix.codes) |
Every time you want to do something, you essentially have to ask permission from a corporation (and, possibly, from a government that regulates it) to do it.
I was thinking about Bitcoin and Satoshi Nakamoto.
Regardless of what you think about Bitcoin (I know that large part of HN crowd is very critical of it), my point is that people were able to create software that has big social impact without asking permission from anyone and without revealing their identity.
Back in the days you could be just some guy sitting in your room, possibly in a backwaters 3rd world country, with a laptop that costs just a couple of hundred dollars and you (potentially) could be just as impactful as a well funded corporate coder. It all depended on your skills and ingenuity.
Now, we are coming to an era when you:
1. Have to have resources to buy tokens or buy/rent inference hardware
2. Have to reveal your identity, your intentions and ask for a permission. Everything you do is potentially logged and analyzed
Of course, theoretically you can do everything "the old school way", but if AI makes a programmer 100x - 1000x more productive, you will always be behind and never catch up.
Bitcoin was decentralized but so was cash. And it was still possible to send cash to people around the world it was just harder to set up and trust. And those cash sending mechanisms didn't really lock people out of them (but could theoretically, sometimes did by way of sanctions).
AI doesn't make programmers 100x productive and it never will, so not really a point there. As long as the output is non deterministic, you have to check it, and no one can check their code 100x faster than writing it
I can't wrap my head around the AI naysayers at this point.
We've had the equivalent of watching the tech go from the Wright Brothers plane to supersonic stealth fighter jets in the span of like 4 years, and yet people keep claiming it will never do things that it clearly will do in like... 6 months.
Or in the case of 100x programmer... it's literally already there. You should try it.
Ye, but you could (at least, theoretically) make your own open source alternative and you weren't particularly disadvantaged compared to corporate programmers doing closed source.
For example, Linux initially was just one guy doing it for fun and see how far did it go.
We may soon come to a situation, when something like Linux will be impossible, because devs making proprietary software will have access to newer/better models that are only sold to big companies and tightly controlled (in the sense that you can use them only for certain "safe" purposes).
> Bitcoin was decentralized but so was cash. And it was still possible to send cash to people around the world it was just harder to set up and trust. And those cash sending mechanisms didn't really lock people out of them (but could theoretically, sometimes did by way of sanctions).
My point is that in future we may come to a scenario when someone like Satoshi won't be able to create something like Bitcoin while keeping their privacy. Because you have to provide a phone number to use OpenAI and also because "creating a non government-authorized financial instrument violates my safety guidelines" or something.
> AI doesn't make programmers 100x productive and it never will, so not really a point there. As long as the output is non deterministic, you have to check it, and no one can check their code 100x faster than writing it
Maybe, maybe not. I'm afraid that eventually fully automated systems will be able to produce code that is good enough without manual checking. Doesn't matter if it is deterministic or not. If the probability of a catastrophic failure is low enough, you can safely ignore it.
... and you can write your own alternative software.
But you can't provide your own 2TB GPU to help you (or to run it, if that's what it needs). So if They(TM) don't like what you're doing, They(TM) can put you at a vast disadvantage compared to everybody else.
Clearly OP has some sock puppet claude accounts that weren't banned
It might be that the author used claude to generate or edit this. Or, they might just write like the bloggers and Redditors whose messages were trained on to create that style.
To be clear, I don’t want to be negative. Don’t want to just troll —- I’m just noticing how all of it is generated. It’s difficult to unsee once you know.
And that's exactly the type of situation where I wish Anthropic would have just put me in front of a human to review OR at least let me know what in my usage caused flags to be raised so I can avoid them in the future
I sent many emails trying to get it reversed, but was meet with silence. It's a shame, as I use Claude at work quite happily and would love to use it at home, but they decided something about my location in the midwest, my ISP (fairly large regional ISP), or my email address (gmail account of first.last) was suspicious.
And ban came after 6-8 hours of last session. My guess they didn’t like that I asked to verify RCE opus found, so he made workable exploit.
Everything else similar to your workflow, no token maxing and etc.
"I opened my inbox and there it was: Claude, gone. Not a warning. Not a rate limit. A revocation."
Clicked off after that.
I'm extremely bullish on AI, but I am tired of people not using their own words. Is everyone so insecure about the personality they project in writing that they need to replace it with some AI bullshit?
(To the author: if you didn't do this, which I accept is a possibility, I'm sorry -- you've been caught by the storm of fatigue that has plagued us due to those who do replace their words with AI crap)
Worst case scenario: high performance chips will be controlled like drugs or firearms (outside US). Like, requiring a license to own, being allowed to use only for specific "safe" purposes, possibly having to submit some kind of telemetry to prove that you are not doing anything "unsafe".
Except, unlike drugs and firearms this control might actually work, because you can't cook chips in an underground lab (unlike drugs) and there are no gazillions of chips in circulation some of which will inevitably slip through the cracks (unlike firearms). I mean, of course there are chips in circulation, but if such control ever will be implemented, you can allow older chips and only control those that are released after passing the law. Eventually, uncontrolled chips will become hopelessly obsolete.
The paradoxical thing is that those of us who have English as a second language should have an easier time producing non-AI-English by the mere act of directly writing what we want to write.
I am catching myself distrusting what people write ever so often. I've got cases of e-mails I'm CC'ed in and I am left wondering: "Has this person always written like this? Is this just an angle in this specific thread (e.g. for sales purposes)? Or are they really relying so much on what the blandness-machine spits out? Am I going mad and wielding my hammer looking for everything in the ....shape (eheh)...of a nail?"
Actually, now that I've written that, it's clear I need to have a talk with some people....sigh...
Ok, I hear you: one could argue that they simply don't realize this is a very non-idiomatic way of writing precisely because english isn't their first language. And that simply giving a preamble "sorry, my english comes from a translation tool, excuse any mistakes" would seem obtuse next to every english text they write.
Ok, I'll concede that. In which case I just have to accept the fact that, perhaps, if LLMs don't solve the problem of writing like garbage, and people keep using them to translate, a bunch of us will simply not want to read what you translate because it reads terribly and messes my brain up.
However, I find it hard to believe that an LLM would translate anything they've written into such a clear LLM trope. I would find it much more believable that they simply brainstormed to an LLM in their language and had the LLM build (at least that part of) the article from it. Even if they proofread it, since english is not their language, it slipped by. Either way, in this hypothetical scenario, the LLM was still used to write (at least a part of) the article, not just translate it.
I also find it somewhat hard to believe that someone who I believe is a developer (and has been using claude for a very long time) does not know enough of both english and claude to identify this specific pattern in the text they are putting their own name to it.
So, sure, maybe the author doesn't predominantly write in english or interact with claude in english, and they did write everything and simply piped it through an LLM to get a translation and, after proofreading the best they could, just didn't notice that.
Alternatively, maybe they just don't give a fuck, something which I can absolutely respect. They lose a reader (at least for now), but stand by what makes sense to them and I genuinely don't think less of them because of it -- I just can't read what they produce. I _would_ probably think less of them if I had to work every day with them and this were a repeated pattern of interaction, but that's not what's being discussed at all.
(Disclaimer: English isn't my first language either, which I think also does come across)