"I'm glad this happened with Anthropic instead of Google, which provides Gemini, email, etc. or I would have been locked out of the actually important non-AI services as well."

Non-disabled organization = the first party provider

Disabled organization = me

I don't know why they're using these weird euphemisms or ironic monikers, but that's what they mean.

▲

gruez 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, "another non-disabled organization" sounds like they used the account of someone else, or sockpuppet to craft the response. He was using "organization" to refer to himself earlier in the post, so it doesn't make sense to use that to refer to another model provider.

	▲	fluoridation 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

mattnewton 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they bought a claude subscription on a personal account and the error message said that they belongs to a "disabled organization" (probably leaking some implementation details).

▲

fluoridation 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That's the part I understand. It's the other term that I don't understand.

▲

mattnewton 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Then I’m confused about what is confusing you haha.

The absurd language is meant to highlight the absurdity they feel over the vague terms in their sparse communication with anthropic. It worked for me.

▲

fluoridation 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Because what is meant by "this organization has been disabled" is fairly obvious. The object in Anthropic's systems belonging to the class Organization has changed to the state Disabled, so the call cannot be executed. Anthropic itself is not an organization in this sense, nor is Google, so I would say that referring to them as "non-disabled organizations" is an equivocation fallacy. Besides that, I can't tell if it's a joke, if it's some kind of statement, or what is being communicated. To me it's just obtuseness for the sake of itself.

	▲	mattnewton 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s a joke because they do not see themselves as an organization, they bought a personal account, were banned without explanation and their only communication refers to them as a “disabled organization”. Anthropic and Google are organizations, and so an “un disabled organization” here is using that absurdly vague language as a way to highlight how bad their error message was. It’s obtuseness to show how obtuse the error message was to them.
	▲	nofriend 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>To me it's just obtuseness for the sake of itself. ironic, isn't it?

▲

quietsegfault 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

He used “organization” because that’s what Anthropic called him, despite the fact he is a person and not an “organization”.

	▲	fluoridation 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, Anthropic didn't call him an organization. Anthropic's API returned the error "this organization has been disabled". What in that sentence implies that "this" is any human? >Because what is meant by "this organization has been disabled" is fairly obvious. The object in Anthropic's systems belonging to the class Organization has changed to the state Disabled, so the call cannot be executed.