But your AI is... wrong. The article contains clear criticisms of search quality and privacy concerns around a CEO who says things like "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably elss than a 100 in the entire world."
You asked your AI if there was "any discussion of privacy", and it said no. That's clearly incorrect, and you've now changed the goalpost massively to disagreement personally with that discussion.
Here, I asked Claude about it, since you like that approach.
> A CEO of a search engine states "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably less than a 100 in the entire world". Is this concerning from a privacy perspective?
> Yes, this statement by the CEO of a search engine company is quite concerning from a privacy perspective for several reasons:
> 1. Underestimating the need for anonymity: The claim that only a few people in the world "really need anonymity" is a gross underestimation. There are many legitimate reasons why individuals may need anonymity, such as whistleblowers, journalists, activists, victims of abuse, members of persecuted groups, and even ordinary citizens who value their privacy.
> 2. Privacy as a fundamental human right: Privacy is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. By dismissing the need for anonymity, the CEO is essentially disregarding the right to privacy for a large segment of the population.
> 3. Potential conflict of interest: As the CEO of a search engine company, which collects and monetizes user data, there is a potential conflict of interest. Downplaying the importance of anonymity and privacy could be seen as a way to justify the company's data collection practices.
> 4. Centralization of power: The statement reflects a concerning centralization of power, where a single entity (the search engine company) gets to decide who "really needs anonymity" and who doesn't. This goes against the principles of a free and open internet.
> 5. Chilling effect: Such statements from a prominent tech leader could have a chilling effect on individuals who seek anonymity for legitimate reasons, as it may discourage them from exercising their right to privacy.
> Overall, this statement by the CEO reflects a concerning lack of understanding or appreciation for the importance of privacy and anonymity in a free and democratic society. It underscores the need for strong privacy protections, decentralized systems, and a broader recognition of the fundamental right to privacy for all individuals, regardless of their specific circumstances.
As a follow-up...
> How do you feel about the claim "I might like anonymity but it is absolutely a 'want', not 'need'."
> I would disagree with the blanket claim that anonymity is absolutely a "want" and not a "need" for everyone. While that may be true for some people, there are many legitimate scenarios where anonymity can be a crucial need, not just a want...
> blah blah blah
> While anonymity may just be a casual preference for some, denying that it can be a critical need for others is concerning. It dismisses the reality that millions face real threats to their safety, freedom or even lives which anonymity helps protect against. Reducing it to just a "want" is dismissive of these legitimate needs.
I read a lot more than three paragraphs before I delegated reading the rest. For most of the article, his complaints were distinctly not relevant to my interests.
I wasn't necessarily saying that you had only read that much, rather that it's a common issue here on HN, and that Claude3 appears to have done the same thing. Stepping back a bit, it's concerning to me that Claude isn't able to read a document with multiple different themes and then represent the fact there were multiple themes, instead taking the first and "assuming" that's what the whole document is about.
I thought this article was actually quite varied – there are issues about personal interactions and communication style, AI hype, marketing and business blunders, tax issues, privacy issues, politics. Some of those matter more to me than others, but I'd imagine most Kagi users would care about at least one of them, given the product is pitched at users who care about some of these.
Oh, ffs, is this going to be the new thing, now? People pretending to read articles by feeding them to an AI and believing whatever old nonsense it spits out? I do think the "humanity is doomed" angle with AIs is overplayed, but okay, yeah, if people are going to do that, maybe humanity _is_ doomed.
If you read the article, you will discover that your magic robot is mistaken.
I pretty much hate you all now for making me read the goddam thing entirely. It's stupid and boring and Claude3 is right. The guy does not point to any holes in security or privacy. He doesn't like the guy's attitude but, there's no "he's collecting your search in privacy mode" claim.
His only criticism of the search results is to say he doesn't think it's better than anyone else.
And yes, it's going to be a thing now. We have cool tools that help us get stuff done quicker. In this case, I read part of the article, then skimmed it before asking Claude3 to read it carefully. Then, because you people are full of fantasy, I read it personally carefully and confirm that my magic robot is exactly right. That encourages me to do it more.
But your AI is... wrong. The article contains clear criticisms of search quality and privacy concerns around a CEO who says things like "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably elss than a 100 in the entire world."
Not sure how that contradicts Claude's conclusions. Also, he's right. I might like anonymity but it is absolutely a 'want', not 'need'.
You asked your AI if there was "any discussion of privacy", and it said no. That's clearly incorrect, and you've now changed the goalpost massively to disagreement personally with that discussion.
Here, I asked Claude about it, since you like that approach.
> A CEO of a search engine states "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably less than a 100 in the entire world". Is this concerning from a privacy perspective?
> Yes, this statement by the CEO of a search engine company is quite concerning from a privacy perspective for several reasons:
> 1. Underestimating the need for anonymity: The claim that only a few people in the world "really need anonymity" is a gross underestimation. There are many legitimate reasons why individuals may need anonymity, such as whistleblowers, journalists, activists, victims of abuse, members of persecuted groups, and even ordinary citizens who value their privacy.
> 2. Privacy as a fundamental human right: Privacy is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. By dismissing the need for anonymity, the CEO is essentially disregarding the right to privacy for a large segment of the population.
> 3. Potential conflict of interest: As the CEO of a search engine company, which collects and monetizes user data, there is a potential conflict of interest. Downplaying the importance of anonymity and privacy could be seen as a way to justify the company's data collection practices.
> 4. Centralization of power: The statement reflects a concerning centralization of power, where a single entity (the search engine company) gets to decide who "really needs anonymity" and who doesn't. This goes against the principles of a free and open internet.
> 5. Chilling effect: Such statements from a prominent tech leader could have a chilling effect on individuals who seek anonymity for legitimate reasons, as it may discourage them from exercising their right to privacy.
> Overall, this statement by the CEO reflects a concerning lack of understanding or appreciation for the importance of privacy and anonymity in a free and democratic society. It underscores the need for strong privacy protections, decentralized systems, and a broader recognition of the fundamental right to privacy for all individuals, regardless of their specific circumstances.
As a follow-up...
> How do you feel about the claim "I might like anonymity but it is absolutely a 'want', not 'need'."
> I would disagree with the blanket claim that anonymity is absolutely a "want" and not a "need" for everyone. While that may be true for some people, there are many legitimate scenarios where anonymity can be a crucial need, not just a want...
> blah blah blah
> While anonymity may just be a casual preference for some, denying that it can be a critical need for others is concerning. It dismisses the reality that millions face real threats to their safety, freedom or even lives which anonymity helps protect against. Reducing it to just a "want" is dismissive of these legitimate needs.
2 replies →
Sounds like Claude3 was trained on Hacker News comment threads – read the first 3 paragraphs and believe you've got the gist of the whole article.
I read a lot more than three paragraphs before I delegated reading the rest. For most of the article, his complaints were distinctly not relevant to my interests.
I wasn't necessarily saying that you had only read that much, rather that it's a common issue here on HN, and that Claude3 appears to have done the same thing. Stepping back a bit, it's concerning to me that Claude isn't able to read a document with multiple different themes and then represent the fact there were multiple themes, instead taking the first and "assuming" that's what the whole document is about.
I thought this article was actually quite varied – there are issues about personal interactions and communication style, AI hype, marketing and business blunders, tax issues, privacy issues, politics. Some of those matter more to me than others, but I'd imagine most Kagi users would care about at least one of them, given the product is pitched at users who care about some of these.
Oh, ffs, is this going to be the new thing, now? People pretending to read articles by feeding them to an AI and believing whatever old nonsense it spits out? I do think the "humanity is doomed" angle with AIs is overplayed, but okay, yeah, if people are going to do that, maybe humanity _is_ doomed.
If you read the article, you will discover that your magic robot is mistaken.
I pretty much hate you all now for making me read the goddam thing entirely. It's stupid and boring and Claude3 is right. The guy does not point to any holes in security or privacy. He doesn't like the guy's attitude but, there's no "he's collecting your search in privacy mode" claim.
His only criticism of the search results is to say he doesn't think it's better than anyone else.
And yes, it's going to be a thing now. We have cool tools that help us get stuff done quicker. In this case, I read part of the article, then skimmed it before asking Claude3 to read it carefully. Then, because you people are full of fantasy, I read it personally carefully and confirm that my magic robot is exactly right. That encourages me to do it more.
I'm seeing it more and more, and it's depressing. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38612300
> Per ChatGPT the government agency that can sue you for false advertising is FTC, not DMV.
There was no presence. I said clearly that I did not read it and that I used Claude3.