I didn't find any of it compelling, perhaps you do. That's what I was asking really, which of these use-cases is valuable for you?

For me if you use a routing service you have to trust it, it sees all your inputs and outputs.

If a cyberattacker can modify the token stream (i.e. man in the middle your traffic), you should be worried about a lot more than which model you're using!

>which of these use-cases is valuable for you?

None of these are directly valuable to me. But you asked "Who will find this useful?" and I gave you the answer to that question (provided by Anthropic in this post). Not everything being worked on will be useful for you. It's just bizarre that you'd be trying to make these arguments.

>If a cyberattacker can modify the token stream (i.e. man in the middle your traffic), you should be worried about a lot more than which model you're using!

Sure, so it'd be great if you could know if someone is modifying your token stream. If only there was some advancement in provable inference that could allow you to verify that what you're getting from a provider is what you expect to get from them.

If one were to listen to /r/claude or /r/codex where half the posts are complaining about models being "lobotomized", one could think that this is the most valuable thing there is!

In all seriousness, this is mostly just one of those defense in depth kind of things. Data exfiltration via a compromised provider is also a very different class of vulnerabilities than prompt injection via malicious tool calls.

[dead]