> Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered.

(not a lawyer, unlike OP, who might be able to refine what I highlighted with more precision)

It's difficult to read good intent in the original comment when the text of the comment says "these guys" as if the account (your account) is endorsing the service rather than representing itself as the provider of the service.

Honestly, it might just be worth deleting and trying again, this time with an honest blurb from your account about the mission rather than pretending to endorse your own product.

Companies without the same constraints are well equipped to keep who they've got, pivot them into managing/overseeing agents to scale, and build better products from the outset.

So this'll be a good opportunity for smaller companies (or not-for-profits like co-ops and credit unions) to eat the lunches of bigger companies that'll be slow to adapt.

Possibly a refund of about $500 per social security number. Doesn't even have to be in cash, could just directly go towards the social security fund if legislated that way.

Tons of ways to fix this quagmire in a way that's beneficial to people. But it won't happen.

Anthropic is a Public Benefit Corporation chartered in Delaware, with an expressed commitment to "the responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity."

So in theory (IANAL), investors can't easily bully Anthropic into abandoning their mission statement unless they can convince a court that Anthropic deliberately aimed to prioritize the cause over profit.

This really depends. If a foreign adversary's surveillance finds you have a particular weakness exploitable for corporate or government espionage, you're cooked.

Domestic governments are at least still theoretically somewhat accountable to domestic laws, at least in theory (current failure modes in the US aside).

This is exactly it. The actual landed cost is 1/10th of the sales price, and most of the rest of the margin pads the marketing and exclusivity machine. If for instance LV starts selling their $200-landed Neverfull bags at $500 or even $1,000, all the infrastructure sustaining the image becomes unsustainable.

Companies (Burberry is mentioned, but it goes unsaid that others engage in it) routinely burn stock to preserve exclusivity[1]. It's a pretty serious issue.

[1] https://www.vogue.com/article/fashion-waste-problem-fabrics-...

> A material number of customers see Animate as a differentiator from our competitors, so even if we only provide support and security patches, the investment is justified for retention.

I don't really think there's a hidden agenda here. The announcement surfaced new information for them, they probably reframed their own analytics and saw insights that backed maintaining Animate as a result.

The world wide web: https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web

certain medical imaging: https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/medipix-partic...

grid computing advances: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00104...

PIMMS: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/

Medicis: https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/cern-accelerates-me...

FLASH radiotherapy: https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/cern-chuv-and-...

---

After your edit:

No, not yet, but those are long tail efforts. The technologies are the short term yield.

She's essentially the CEO, even if not in title. And she does a great job isolating and insulating SpaceX and its staff from the specific tilts of its named CEO.

This study is dead in the water. Teens have zero near-term incentives to be honest about any of these events.

For a study with this scope to be effective, parents will have to opt in using existing tracking/monitoring tooling for their child's habits. And even then, you might only be able to establish correlations with events serious enough to warrant mental health medical visits.

Speculating:

If this is a condition of employment as an astronaut, then it probably wouldn't include conditions confirmed not to be caused by being in space, which means this'll stay confidential until NASA has fully diagnosed the crew member and figured out what likely happened.

And if it turns out the crew member's issue was entirely unrelated to the mission, it stays under wraps but new science or procedures are devised to better manage this and related conditions in space.

We deserve as much transparency as we can get on the science we as taxpayers paid for, not full de-anonymization of the bodily happenings of living crew. There's certainly valuable science here, but the crew member doesn't have to be outed for it.

> You don't get to go to space on other people's money and expect privacy.

I don't think this is a healthy mindset, and there's a heck of a slippery slope with this argument. Would we apply this to companies receiving federal grants too? Contractors? Universities? Schools? That's a lot of people who'll lose medical privacy for something probably unrelated to their job, and there'll be a much smaller applicant pool for the jobs themselves if applicants are aware that their own internal issues might be disclosed when the public clamors for it.

> We might want to learn from what went wrong here.

Agree, NASA certainly will, and new science and engineering will come of it that we benefit from. But that doesn't have to involve breaching medical privacy and ethics.

Edit: I'm standing by it. The person they hired for it has a good track record elsewhere. And much as I don't like what Flock is building as a company, at least they're building security in now, even if it wasn't front of mind for them in the past.

He's got his work cut out for him though.