— via https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Disp...
The DA is serious about "in any matter."
However, people need to get it in their heads that they're not chatting with their secret BFF, they're chatting with Big Tech. Before LLMs, Big Tech had no way to scrutinize the bulk of what was going on within their services, so you could have a secret hate diary in Google Docs. Now, everything you say or write can be automatically screened for red flags on a planetary scale, and probably will be because that's what the regulators and "concerned citizens" will demand. In a couple of years, you'll be biting your tongue a lot more often in private chats.
As another commenter said, you're not chatting with a friend; you're chatting with Big Tech.
How much do you love Big Brother?
Yup. And with zero privacy protections in statute for AI chat, there is nothing to prevent an AI CEO looking to curry political favour from e.g. handing over the private correspondence of an opponent or an entire district’s residents.
Then again, I wish this worked in a way that would give users more privacy and agency, instead of less.
Of course I did not mean any of that stuff, but how can you make sure a human reviewer knows you did not mean it while the llm does not know that you did not mean it.
I guess its a miracle I am not in jail yet.
Flagging people for anything said to an llm sounds wrong to me because an LLM is not a real person and while some people put in their internal thoughts, others just roleplay and the two are inseparable just from reading it.
Over in Europe they want to read all ofd our private messages, yet these chatbots, pretending to be our friends, will snitch on us just for our thoughts.
It's getting pretty orwellian out there.
How does a LLM prompt satisfy this? I guess it'll be an easy win for her.
> Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism.
She didn't threaten anything, she wrote down that she was going to do it. A "threat" is more than a mere statement, especially when written in what is described as a "diary".
> A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to "shoot up" the Sheriff's office.
Obviously I don't want anyone to shoot up anything, but this seems like a weak case legally speaking.
A diary constitutes making a threat?
Oh boy the roleplaying part of LLM world is in for a bad time
Somehow humanity survived the past 40 years without Microsoft Word and Excel phoning home and shopping users to the feds at random, I don't see why the standard should be any different for this new class of tooling.
altmanaltman•56m ago
Thought crimes are real when you're sharing your thoughts with Claude
Guvante•48m ago
danpalmer•44m ago
bossyTeacher•40m ago
Summary: don't type in Claude anything you wouldn't like a human to read.
jimbob45•38m ago
calgoo•28m ago
danpalmer•15m ago
I don't think someone is an idiot for thinking that the information they type into their private Claude account is private. I also don't think people are idiots for thinking their phone is listening to them and giving them targeted advertising based on that. Both are reasonable deductions from their lived experiences. Both are wrong.
foolfoolz•46m ago
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/everyone-deserves-to-die...
https://www.wdsu.com/article/maryland-high-school-student-ch...
https://www.pinellassheriff.gov/21-023-deputies-arrest-pinel...
danpalmer•39m ago
JumpCrisscross•37m ago
I think it’s valid to ask if tapping something into Claude is legitimately sharing a threat.
I don’t think it is. I also think the sheriff could have found more-substantial evidence if she was actually planning domestic terrorism.
That said, if the shooting happened and we were looking at this before? It’s a tough balance without an easy answer.
rimliu•26m ago