Have you ever considered using a foot-pedal for PTT?

Apple incidentally already has native STT, but for some reason they just don't use a decent model yet.

It's possible to drive results and create a culture of accountability without dragging people into the room with you just so you can interrupt their work in-person.

It's basically just a frontend to a semantic search system, and is a tangent while I explore "knowledgebase" concepts.

I'm extremely interested in knowledgebases at the moment.

With a well-supported hardware configuration and a working web browser, even a non-techie may have a more stable experience than they would with Windows.

That has as much to do with the decline of Windows as with the ascent of desktop Linux, but still.

Obviously, in a case like this, an individual would be violating the terms of their employment/non-disclosure agreement. I agree that is bad!

I don't think that damns the concept of "predicting known information".

You get a lot of leverage that way, but it's still better than letting AI use your keys and act with full autonomy on stuff of consequence.

Claude code runs in a container, and I just connect that container to the right network.

It's nice to be able to keep mid-task state in that environment without stepping on my own toes. It's easy to control what data is accessible in there, even if I have to work with real data in my dev environment.

As I understand it, we'd essentially be relying on something like an mp3 compression algorithm to fail to capture a particular, subtle transient -- the lossy nature itself is the only real protection.

I agree that it's vanishingly unlikely if one person includes a sensitive document in their context, but what if a company has a project context which includes the same document in 10,000 chats? Maybe then it's more much likely that whatever private memo could be captured in training...

If you are interested in the public good, I think it is pretty clear that we should ban roulette overnight since it has a negative expected value for everyone but the casino. On the other hand (still presuming you're interested in the public good), I think you have to consider very carefully whether it's good or bad to lock people out of investments or to restrict people's access to health care.

But, presumably for liability and out of a genuine attempt to get me the best care possible, they _prefer_ to send me off to a specialist. Either way I'm not being treated until the specialist has time, which take a couple months at least.

All other things being equal, we should try to protect people. But we shouldn't force everyone to make the choices that are best for the people with the least comprehension of what they're doing.

There was never going to be anything preventing non-technical folks from buying iPhones. They can and should have what they like.

Why should there be a law that forces that same compromise onto anyone who can only afford a single device and needs to use it to access their bank?

If I'm responsible for something, nobody's getting that access.

If someone's hired me for something and that's the environment they provide, it is what it is. They distribute trust however they feel. I'd argue that's still more reasonable than giving similar access to an AI agent though.

Also, I "trust Claude code" to work on more or less what I asked and to try things which are at least facially reasonable... but having an environment I can easily reset only means it's more able to experiment without consequences. I work in containers or VMs too, when I want to try stuff without having to cleanup after.