Anyway, people are far too trusting of their own ability to be perfect and the models' ability to be perfect. Which is why you have to keep backups if you value your data.
He is. On the other hand, when a tool of massive power becomes increasingly easy to use, it becomes increasingly easy to misuse, intentionally or not.
The question is if self-regulation is enough. Not that I necessarily trust legislators to know any better. But like we have observed from the world of agentic coding, sometimes two stupid things can behave as a unit of higher intelligence than the individual parts.
Take the emotions he experienced after the event: "Who do I talk to, how do I undo this, what do I do" etc., and the fact that he's met with a wall of silence from Anthropic.
Perhaps there needs be more concerted preparation, guidance, direction and less trial and error for how society adopts it.
The imperfect comparison that sometimes comes up is to that of nuclear power, where international regulation and guidance quickly was adopted. I'm not necessarily endorsing the literal comparison, but an attitude of "well, let's just see how people choose to use nuclear power" would have yielded a significantly different world, I'm sure.
He's using a tool that he pays for, that has been sold to him as hyper-capable and autonomous (even with the small-text warning about it being able to make mistakes). The providers of the tool are also responsible, even if only for the misleading advertising.
“When the owners of Bengaluru heritage work failed to back up their previous work, it was lost when accidentally deleted”
Do you notice something? Pay close attention to the detail. It’s hard to spot….. I did not blame AI/Claude.
The question of how people choose to use nuclear power does not arise, because most people use the electricity it generates rather than operate their own nuclear power stations. With AI people need to operate it themselves. Its fundamentally different. Its more like trying to stop people from writing bad code.