| ▲ | tencentshill 5 hours ago |
| I don't trust these AI-only companies to be overnight experts in properly handling medical, financial and insurance data. They have no business providing these tools, unless they want to take all the risk too. |
|
| ▲ | areoform 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Claude's actually pretty great at this! I actually used to use Claude A LOT to answer interesting questions (which I'll be writing up on!) More generally, Claude is palpably different from most other agents. I'd recommend these models – especially Opus – without qualifications. But there's a process risk here based on their current practises. I'm hoping those practises change so that I can recommend Claude to everyone I know, but as of now, there's existential risk exposure here that's greater than Google's. Anthropic's automated systems can and will ban you for pretty arbitrary things; and you won't get human support or Claude – even if you are an enterprise paying out of your nose. And there's 0 redressal unless you go viral on social media. Or know someone who knows someone. See: https://x.com/Whizz_ai/status/2051180043355967802 https://x.com/theo/status/2045618854932734260 And I say that as someone who likes how Anthropic has been training Claude and Opus. I just don't think they're prepared to be the trillion dollar company they've become. They are – in a very real way – suffering from success. Which is extremely inconvenient to be on the receiving end of when you're on a deadline. |
| |
| ▲ | brunoborges 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Before AI, shipping code to production used to be a two-person task: one writes the code, another one reviews the code. Now with AI writing the code, the developer that was supposed to write the code, only has to review it. And this is because they are responsible for the code they ship. Code review has become unbearable because before AI, developers were reviewing code as they went writing it in the first place. Granted, never perfect and why a second person reviewing code was (is?) a best practice. But effectively there was always some level of code review happening as developers wrote code. I fear it is way more boring to review financial and medical documents completely written by AI than it is to write (and at the same time review) by yourself. And way more dangerous to ship mistakes than in most software. | | |
| ▲ | areoform 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I am/was writing up an interesting hypothesis with Claude's help. But I redid the most important parts of the data pipeline manually. As in went in and cmd-c + cmd-v'ed the data by hand to create a reference, and I'm randomly spot checking 33% of the larger records. The analysis itself; I'm doing it by hand. | |
| ▲ | traceroute66 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the developer that was supposed to write the code, only has to review it. But more often than not that developer ends up reviewing far more lines of code due to the typical verbosity of an LLM. | | |
| |
| ▲ | intended 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > and you won't get human support or Claude – even if you are an enterprise paying out of your nose. And there's 0 redressal unless you go viral on social media. Sadly this sounds like par for the course when it comes to tech. Too many messages and requests for help depend on knowing someone in the right slack groups. | | |
| ▲ | areoform 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which is very confusing to me. If you have groundbreaking AI, you can offer groundbreaking support at scale. | | |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You wouldn't build a chat bot for that, imagine how easy it is to make that thing go off the rails and allow anyone to reactivate their account. Really, you can't trust it to do any business function... At least, that's really the message this sends in my opinion | |
| ▲ | traceroute66 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you have groundbreaking AI, you can offer groundbreaking support at scale You're a funny one aren't you... Meet "Fin" Anthropic's "where support questions go to die" so-called-support bot, created by Intercom but powered by Anthropic. Maybe it's an internal in-joke in the Anthropic offices ... "Fin" in french means "End". I don't know anyone who has had a positive experience with "Fin" .... or ever spoken to a human at Anthropic support for that matter, even if you ask "Fin" to escalate. | |
| ▲ | intended 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope. Customer support and safety are cost centers. It doesn’t scale like software does and no one’s KPIs are going to improve dramatically if you provide support beyond a point. AI and LLMs are the cool tech, and the most important thing is to push the frontier. Money spent elsewhere is money not spent on R&D. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t the GDPs of nations being spent on this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dakolli 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They aren't even close to a 1T company, they're valued at <400bb and that's at like a 20x-30x multiple. They can probably raise money at a higher valuation but its literally just value based on hype, not revenue. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | motbus3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The only reason they are doing it is because there are regulation for people but not for machines. |
| |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is objectively not true. You can’t get around HIPAA by saying “lol wasn’t me it was an Agent” | |
| ▲ | greenpresident an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | My experience has been quite the opposite. Some bank processes remain oral traditions about clicking excel filters by hand because any code would have to be extensively documented and tested. |
|
|
| ▲ | tossandthrow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I would recommend you to not use these, if you are not willing to absorb the risk. Luckily there is still a significant market for the services. |
