Comment by fluoridation
21 hours ago
No, I don't think so. I think my interpretation is correct.
> a textbox where I tried to convince some Claude C in the multi-trillion-quadrillion dollar non-disabled organization
> So I wrote to their support, this time I wrote the text with the help of an LLM from another non-disabled organization.
> My guess is that this likely tripped the "Prompt Injection" heuristics that the non-disabled organization has.
A "non-disabled organization" is just a big company. Again, I don't understand the why, but I can't see any other way to interpret the term and end up with a coherent idea.
It seems just as likely to me that they're just using their terminology inconsistently as it is that they're using it consistently but with that egregious amount of ambiguity. The only thing that I'm confident about is that they're communicating in a very confusing way, and that doesn't really give me any strong insight into whether they're being consistent but vague or just plain vague.
Again, I don't agree. If you replace every instance of "non-disabled organization" with just "company", the sentences make sense. There's no need to suppose that the term means anything else, when this interpretation resolves all the outstanding questions satisfactorily and simply.
Sure, but that's not what they said, which is why it's confusing. Earlier in the article they referred to themselves as the "disabled organization", so it's not obvious to me that there's change in what they mean by the word to an entirely different one. Your explanation is plausible and consistent, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, and I don't think that being internally consistent is sufficient evidence to conclude that something is true.
Just want to say thank you for being patient and rational. Reading your comments in this thread, they're like a soothing bandaid over all this flustered upset.
I wish there were more comments like yours, and fewer people getting upset over words and carrying what feels like resentment into public comments.
Apologies to all for this meta comment, but I'd like to send some public appreciation for this effort.
I’m sorry but the fact this has turned into a multi comment debate is proof that that phrase was way too ambiguous to be included. That phrase made no sense and the article, while unreliable, would have at least been more readable without it.
1 reply →