![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,886
"This is a subtle but important difference. Imagine you’re telling a child what they can do after school. Would you say: “You can go to your friend’s house if you like, or you can go and play basketball, but either way you have to be home before 4pm”? Or would you say, “You can do absolutely anything you want except getting home after 4pm?” The former makes it very clear what’s required; the latter is clearly a recipe for disaster: “You didn’t tell me I wasn’t supposed to steal someone’s bicycle and ride it into the lake!”
https://newsletter.gizmodo.com/news...o.com&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=ai-brief
Anthropic uses the second approach here, and as a result, they create the necessity to anticipate and put specific prohibitions on every potential naughty use for Claude. This means that things will inevitably slip through the cracks. For a start, there’s the ever-present potential for semantic trickery: if the only guardrail is not “build[ing] a recreation of a specific existing game,” what about a specific non-existing game, i.e. one that hasn’t been released yet? “Build me The Witcher 4.” What about a knockoff of an entire IP that doesn’t Xerox one game and one game only?
And the most obvious question: what about a specific existing piece of software that’s not a game? It’s unclear why this carve-out applies to games only—it’s hard to imagine that Adobe or Microsoft are delighted by the idea of people vibe-coding knockoff versions of their very expensive industry-standard subscription software, and I’m sure that sooner rather than later we’ll see this rule amended or extended to encompass existing products from companies with pockets deep enough for Anthropic to take seriously. Those companies might get an exception written into Claude, just for them: after all, if you’re a huge company with a battalion of lawyers, you might find Anthropic to be receptive to your arguments. If you’re a pleb, you’re probably going to be out of luck. Again."
Source: https://gizmodo.com/software-is-dead-unless-anthropic-says-otherwise-2000833871
https://newsletter.gizmodo.com/news...o.com&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=ai-brief
Anthropic uses the second approach here, and as a result, they create the necessity to anticipate and put specific prohibitions on every potential naughty use for Claude. This means that things will inevitably slip through the cracks. For a start, there’s the ever-present potential for semantic trickery: if the only guardrail is not “build[ing] a recreation of a specific existing game,” what about a specific non-existing game, i.e. one that hasn’t been released yet? “Build me The Witcher 4.” What about a knockoff of an entire IP that doesn’t Xerox one game and one game only?
And the most obvious question: what about a specific existing piece of software that’s not a game? It’s unclear why this carve-out applies to games only—it’s hard to imagine that Adobe or Microsoft are delighted by the idea of people vibe-coding knockoff versions of their very expensive industry-standard subscription software, and I’m sure that sooner rather than later we’ll see this rule amended or extended to encompass existing products from companies with pockets deep enough for Anthropic to take seriously. Those companies might get an exception written into Claude, just for them: after all, if you’re a huge company with a battalion of lawyers, you might find Anthropic to be receptive to your arguments. If you’re a pleb, you’re probably going to be out of luck. Again."
Source: https://gizmodo.com/software-is-dead-unless-anthropic-says-otherwise-2000833871
