I think what people are saying is we know there is probably a silent line somewhere, and we have no way of knowing when we cross it. It feels like it has an implied "most of the people reading this can treat it as unlimited in practice"

the message content wasn't leaked here

There is obviously a lot of potential here, but there is also a lot of solution looking for a problem.

My current red flag is if an argument hinges on a trademark breathless frisson for the growth potential. Statements like "models are getting smarter every month" that hasn't been true for a year. If your excitement over AI is based not on what we can do today, but a presumed future expansion for which we have no evidence, that's silly.

But what they can do today is cool. We worked for a long time to get computers to understand natural language intent, and LLMs demonstrably solve this problem.

one of my questions about a login form also tripped a harassment flag

- the cpu arch of the servers

- mentioning that you have to trust vendors not to keep your data, then announcing a cloud architecture where you have to trust them not to keep your data

- pushing the verifiability of the phone image, when all we ever cared about was what they sent to servers

- only "relevant" data is sent, which over time is everything, and since they never give anyone fine-grained control over anything, the llm will quietly determine what's relevant

- the mention that the data is encrypted, which of course it isn't, since they couldn't inference. They mean in flight, which hopefully _everything_ is, so it's irrelevant