I was about to say "I know! That's the beauty of it!" but didn't they integrate Copilot into Notepad?

use Vim.

There's no law but there is precedent isn't there?

Care to elaborate? (Or point to where one can learn more about this?)

i think anthopic was right to report it, but the cops likely overstepped. if she had “threatened” the president she would have been assesed by ss but likely not arrested. i wonder if the same cops she was “threatening” were the ones she was reported to and arrested by.

This is just ass coverage for the company. They're not going to pursue it. They just didn't want to get sued for not reporting it if she did commit a mass shooting. The prosecution though might.

I'm building a fully private assistant with local Home Assistant, local model, and a local Wikipedia database for lookups. Will probably make a post/release of it soon once I finish replacing all my Google Nest displays.

Up until the 80s, there was still some debate over whether wiretaps should be legal. It's sad that we have come to accept them as normal.

People will fight you tooth and nail to prevent something they view as immediately threatening to them. On the other hand, they'll pay you to implement something they view as immediately useful to them. In either case, they don't care at all about any non-immediate repercussions for anything.

I get called a downer for mentioning how this all works. You shouldn’t connect your smart tv to the network, you shouldn’t use Alexa, anything you do online is public, and it always gets recorded poorly.

Maybe my partner is the only person who listens, and she has all her stuff disabled, there are no network attached smart things in it house, but she still uses windows and she’s not yet receptive to moving to Linux (which is a hard sell).

Worse, if you tell them how big of a problem it is, they'll assume you have something to hide

I guess that's also true lol

cool pfp

Not the person you're replying to, but I think there's a difference between claiming she wasn't charged with the right thing vs saying no one should be charged for planning a crime. I don't think the intention of the law was to prevent people from writing things wherein they thought they were just venting privately. I understand that her understanding was incorrect, but I think the intention (venting vs creating fear and chaos) is an important factor. I think the law is to prevent posting bomb or shooting threats online or sending them directly to people.

I think there should be legal difference between saying "I hate X so much I just want to kill him" and "what gun would be best to kill a person of Y height and Z weight and what would be the best way to hide their body." I'm familiar with the chat logs from the FSU situation and it wasn't just venting. I'd probably want to see her full logs before making a legally binding decision, but from the summary it does not sound like a credible threat was made. It may have constituted a referral to law enforcement, but based on what I read law enforcement should have just done a check in and likely not charged. They are likely just salty and want to punish people who aren't waving thin blue line flags.

You lost me at writing a story and Ai.

Sure, but what's the value of their AI if it still needs human oversight? If it can't take responsibility, then you need a human.

Gotta say: kinda hurts their sales pitch, IMO. I mean, AI isn't even replacing humans at Anthropic...

I was not aware of that. Damn, this is why we can't have nice things. Back to looking for a useable swipe-keyboard on my phone that i don't feel icky using. Currently it's still better than using Gboard from a privacy perspective, but i'd rather try to get something less problematic.

Edit: I read the addendum fully and in peace now, and it seems they have at least rectified the situation surrounding donations/grants. They fall into the same trap as so many coders do, as in "I don't do politics" to make sure they are as palatable as possible to as large an audience as possible. They do not realize that what they do by default is politics, and taking an official stance is an important part of that. I am somewhat confused by that too, because i am very sure by Louis Rossmans behavior in general that he is a very political person.

Edit2: Ok, after looking a bit more into the issue (mainly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaoXHT8BfV4 and https://danb.me/blog/futo-open-source-definition/ ) it seems that in general they are mainly guilty of Open-Source-Washing their projects. Their Licences are more restrictive than what is commonly known as FOSS, which they have every right to do so, but they keep using the term "Open Source" where it does not meet the commonly accepted definition of that term. Their licences are still pretty permissive in regards to openness what exactly you are running on your devices, but especially the redistributing situation (not allowing to change payment links, which also means any forks of their software would not have any financing opportunities; not allowing to place "ads and malware", which, while i fully agree with it, is still not in line with the open source definition) does not meet the requirements of "Open Source".

I feel a bit less icky now, phew.

This is completely irrelevant - by default local models do not have access to the internet, because you have to provide/activate the relevant tools. They can't access the web by themselves regardless of where you are, the environment has to be set up for it. Even if you provide a web search tool, they can't do anything outside of providing search parameters - what happens with them is defined by the tool, not the LLM.

These things work by providing the LLM with a system prompt that explain them what they have to do to get access to specific tools. They get provided the specific syntax they have to use it, and the environment they are running inside is then parsing the correctly formatted plain text the LLM outputs.

Specific example for the system prompt in Newelle, a all-in-one suite on Linux to run models, to provide tools in general and the web search tool in detail:

# Tools  

## Overview  
You have access to tools that extend your capabilities. Use them when they are relevant to the user's request.  

## Invocation Format  
When using a tool, output **only** a single valid JSON object:  

\`\`\`json  
{  
  "tool": "tool_name",  
  "arguments": {  
    "arg_name": "arg_value"  
  }  
}  
\`\`\`  

## Rules  
1. Output only the JSON object — no explanations, markdown, or extra text before or after.  
2. Ensure valid JSON: no comments, trailing commas, or extra text.  
3. Use only the tools listed below and only their defined arguments.  
4. **After invoking a tool, stop generating immediately.** Wait for the result before continuing.  
5. Some tools are shown in **compact form** (only name and description, no `parameters`), marked "(compact: ...)". Calling a compact tool directly with guessed or missing arguments is an error and will be rejected.  
## Available Tools  

\`\`\`  
{TOOLS}  
\`\`\`  

The Search tool in detail:

{  
  "name": "search",  
  "description": "Perform a search query on the internet, you can specify the number of results to return and if you want to only return the links and titles.",  
  "parameters": {  
    "type": "object",  
    "properties": {  
      "query": {  
        "type": "string"  
      },  
      "tool_uuid": {  
        "type": "string"  
      },  
      "only_links": {  
        "type": "boolean"  
      },  
      "max_results": {  
        "type": "integer"  
      }  
    },  
    "required": [  
      "query"  
    ]  
  }  
}  

Edit: I can't for the love of god find out how to escape the 3 backticks for the JSON-Object correctly without either breaking the code blocks or the backslashes showing up. In the original prompt, the backslashes do not exist.

You can just sandbox AI and block any network access via firewall. Trivial

But are we sure she didn't want to shoot no deputy?

Tears in Heaven?

The article very much states that it is in fact illegal to write down a threat under Florida law.

I think this is a combination of the law being poorly written and the woman in question making a significantly questionable decision. Her actions have consequences (even if I think that law is problematic at best). There's no reason for her to have had an expectation that Claude chats would be private (we've had repeated news reports that prove otherwise).