As a result, analytics endpoints generally have some authentication and verification built into them. Obviously, with enough time it's possible to reverse engineer these components. But that's a lot of time and effort vs just blocking the request.

Personally, I just plop it into a "dead letter office" table, then verify it's not malicious. But it's possible other companies would handle this differently.

Or, more likely, it will tell you something it doesn't know.

Reminds me of yesterday, when I was arguing with ChatGPT that the 5070TI was an actual video card. It kept trying to correct me by saying I must have meant a 4070ti, since no such 5070ti card exists.

We are just different. That's not something to be mad about.

It's not an age thing. It seems to be an experience thing. If AI is perceived to have ruined something you like, or otherwise negatively impacted your life, you're going to hate it.

Really? Because every "normie" I know complains to me about how much they hate AI.

Lots of the the complaints center around it being forced on users, how all information on the web is AI generated anymore, thus can't be trusted, broader issues around how it makes society much less stable (bots, misinformation, fakeporn, and more recently, breaking security). And, of course, those whose jobs are actively being replaced by AI really hate it.

The data centers going up locally are likely to be another avenue for complaints.

More armies of one. That single team of five now becomes 30 teams of one or two each.

Which largely how automation resulted in more jobs - the cost decrease induced demand. Think about how cheap cameras, laptops & internet up-ended traditional media. We went from 3-4 channels on TV in the 60s, to 3-400 channels on cable by the 90s, to 115 million channels on YouTube right now. Because anyone with a basic phone can record and edit content, which used to require millions of dollars in equipment and took years to learn to do. And people are happy to do so for a fraction of the revenue a TV station would require.

Chatbots are not people. They are computer programs. And there's no other realm I can think of where merely interfacing with a computer program breaks attorney-client privilege.

It is equivalent to saying an email to your lawyer breaks privilege because you communicated with gmail. And it gets turbofucked when you consider that a program may be sending your information to an LLM. Would this same judge rule that having copilot installed in Outlook also breaks privilege because they "chatted with an outside party" while drafting an email (even if they didn't intend to send it to copilot)?

I can't think of a reason this isn't about the technology.

Say a person used Excel via Office 365 to run some calculations to be given to their lawyer for their defense. Is that considered to be "communicating with a third party?" I don't think so, it's just a computer tool.

We call them "chatbots" and anthropomorphize LLMs, but, despite the name of Claude's parent company, Claude is not a person.

Seems like there might be demand for chat clients with end-to-end encryption.