r/technology • u/Miserable_Phase_2519 • 14h ago

Artificial Intelligence Florida woman used Claude as a diary, then Anthropic reported an entry to police

https://www.techspot.com/news/114091-florida-woman-used-claude-diary-anthropic-reported-shoot.html
13.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/PoppingPillls 14h ago edited 7h ago

This is a tightrope situation.

Either they monitor communication in these cases where someone might be venting, upset or serious or they don't. One case brings up privacy issues and the other brings up safety issues.

Honestly it's hard to know what the solution really is.

Edit: Some fucking psychos in the replies, read the article before commenting and insulting me... Jesus fucking christ...

Some of you need therapy.

Another incident has taken place that illustrates the need to be careful what you tell AI. A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to "shoot up" the Sheriff's office. After a human reviewer examined the statements, they were reported to police.

64

u/StarFox-6 14h ago

There’s no way to be 100% safe. We shouldn’t give up our rights or privacy in the name of safety. That just doesn’t work.

6

u/InfinitelyThirsting 13h ago

But like, a chatbot isn't something with privacy. An actual diary is private. A sycophantic robot that responds to you is not a diary, by any stretch of the imagination.

14

u/rickg 13h ago

Then don't write in a piece of online software that you don't control. It's far too late in the game for people to do stuff like this and then go all shocked pikachu when they find out that their information isn't private.

14

u/Advanced-Blackberry 11h ago

This isn’t privacy. It’s a paid/free service run by a major corporation. There are plenty of diary methods on a computer that do have privacy. 

3

u/Slarg232 9h ago

I mean, if nothing else there's always this weird, new recent invention called books. They literally can't hack your computer/monitor your Claude to read your diary entries if they're not on the computer in the first place.

1

u/Dat_Mawe3000 9h ago

Exactly. People that assume these platforms are private deserve to be caught.

1

u/blacklotusmag 8h ago

This is an idiotic take. Corporations have long been known to market their tool or service as one way, but then, buried deep in their Terms of Service, it's the opposite.

The *legality* isn't the issue, it's the *implication*. If you build your tool to appear private, use wording that reinforces the idea that it's private - hell, even market it as private when it absolutely is not (Firefox's "incognito" mode, anyone?) - then you can't cry "But we never explicitly SAID it was private!" as a defense for when people freak out that your "privacy-forward" service isn't what you implied it was.

2

u/Dat_Mawe3000 5h ago

It’s not about the terms of service or what the corporation does or does not communicate. It’s about using common fucking sense in 2026 and realizing NO corporation can be trusted fully.

1

u/faultless280 7h ago

Caught doing what exactly, venting? FFS 🤦

1

u/Dat_Mawe3000 5h ago

Caught planning to do illegal shit, according to the article.

0

u/AndrewH73333 7h ago

If a corporation had someone pretend to be your friend and personal assistant so they could spy on you and report and record each thing you do, we’d say that’s insane and illegal. Right?

4

u/e00s 5h ago

If you tell a human therapist you plan to shoot up a sheriff’s office, they’ll turn you in too.

2

u/Silent_Turn6182 5h ago

No, because it's in the TOS? It's the same when you see a therapist or speak to an IRL friend. If you tell them you're going to murder someone they gotta tell the police

1

u/Advanced-Blackberry 5h ago

They are reporting EACH thing??

3

u/Ok_Eagle_6239 13h ago

In the school shooting case, it was also asking the chat for advice on how to do it, how to get weapons. Anything different with that? Like just the chat shouldn't participate, but also not report.

2

u/Chruman 12h ago

If you want private diary, use a notebook. Simple as.

2

u/Bacardi_Tarzan 7h ago

I disagree but if you want to keep your right to shoot people so much that you’re willing to give others the right to shoot you then that’s your prerogative.

0

u/StarFox-6 6h ago

Who said anything about shooting people?

2

u/Bacardi_Tarzan 6h ago

Oh, did you not actually mean what you said about never giving up rights for security? Sorry, I just assume people mean what they say and aren’t just throwing out a platitude to avoid engaging in good faith. 

0

u/StarFox-6 5h ago

We are obviously talking about online digital privacy

2

u/Bacardi_Tarzan 4h ago

You mean the thing that enables unprecedented human trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors? Not sure that’s the hill to die on, especially since ‘we should  never give up our online digital privacy for security’ is oddly specific compared to your original statement. Why? Why would online digital privacy be different than anything else where you clearly are ok with balancing security, privacy, and freedom?

3

u/NewtonsThirdEvilEx 12h ago

So you don't believe in any gun control? Any restrictions on drinking and driving? People should be able to buy functioning weapons of mass destruction?

0

u/StarFox-6 12h ago

Nice strawman brother! You’re doing great at that

9

u/NewtonsThirdEvilEx 12h ago

How am I strawmanning you? That is your literal argument here.

There’s no way to be 100% safe. We shouldn’t give up our rights or privacy in the name of safety. That just doesn’t work.

like

We shouldn’t give up our rights or privacy in the name of safety.

we can and do that all the time. tell me specifically how i am strawmanning you. you just put the line of safety-liberty somewhere else. but you still have a line.

-5

u/StarFox-6 12h ago

Because I’m clearly talking about online surveillance and you bring up the issues of guns and driving, which is clearly not what I was referring to

6

u/NewtonsThirdEvilEx 12h ago

So you don't believe that someone who posts on Instagram that they are going to shoot up their high school should be surveilled and stopped?

1

u/StarFox-6 10h ago

Another strawman

-2

u/f_myeah 11h ago

That's literally the opposite of private

4

u/InfinitelyThirsting 10h ago

So is a chatbot where you have to agree to ToS that it isn't private.

0

u/f_myeah 8h ago edited 7h ago

Nah, there's a different expectation of privacy, ToS or not.

Instagram's purpose is to publish to the public. A chat with an AI agent seems more private, like a 1 on 1 conversation.

She shouldn't be convicted just because she didn't read the fine print and didn't realize an Anthropic employee would be reading it and it therefore constitutes "posting a threat."

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

9

u/alaphamale 13h ago

The nationwide response to Flock says otherwise.

2

u/rickg 13h ago

Flock tips the balance way to far to one side with no apparent safety counterbalance. But let's say that Anthropic didn't report a madman who was planning a mass shooting - and it took place.Or a ring of pedophiles plotting.

How many of you would be screaming that they have a responsibility there? Many, I'd bet.

In 2026 expecting privacy in a situation like the one described in the OP is naive to the point of idiocy. If you want to privately journal don't do it in a host bit of software.

0

u/chefdisco 8h ago

Corporations stopping pedophiles?

Lol the government is run by pedophiles and funded by these corps. This is general police-state surveillance.

2

u/PoppingPillls 13h ago

Flock cameras don't provide safety, they provide surveillance.

Don't confuse big brother for safety.

1

u/MainAccountsFriend 11h ago

Sure but is that any different from Anthropic doing what they did here?

How could they report to the police if they hadn't surveilled in some sort of way?

1

u/PoppingPillls 10h ago

Yes, that's targeted and flagged for safety only then is it checked by a human.

Flock cameras are checking for any crime even victimless crimes or non-criminal antisocial behaviours.

1

u/InfinitelyThirsting 10h ago

If you want a diary, get a diary. Don't use a chatbot, which is by no definition anything like a diary, to talk about the crime you're planning to commit, up to telling the bot about the new gun you just bought. The conversation wasn't even sent to the cops until after a human reviewed it. She chose to misuse this tool after she agreed to use it.

Cameras monitoring all outdoor activities, which you did not agree to in any way, that can be easily used to stalk women by cops and constantly send incorrect tickets because there isn't human reviewing, very different.

9

u/Fragrant_Fox_5056 13h ago

This is massively untrue . The vast majority of people aren’t wanting to be tracked from A to B as the norm

1

u/YourBlanket 13h ago

They already are tho, there's no stopping that.

2

u/xxxBuzz 10h ago

It's extremely easy to stop. The choice to track someone is something that has to be made consistently but it could easily cease at any moment. Whether it's likely to happen is indifferent. It's more of an; "you can't stop me" which is also not necessarily accurate, but whether some people are willing to go to similar extremes is a bit different. Most people aren't going to be able to really comprehend why someone would even want to do such ignorant things. They could not do that though, very easily. Unless we want to get into the root causes of such behaviors, which is a little difficult. Insane people do not know they're insane, and you're not going to convince them, nor would that help them over come it.

0

u/YourBlanket 10h ago

Idek what you're talking about lol.

1

u/xxxBuzz 10h ago

I am aware. The point of the comment, aside from venting, is so that anyone who reads your comment can look at it and not assume they or everyone else are clueless/insane.

1

u/LuckyPlaze 12h ago

Personally, I’m fine with it being monitored. It’s not private if you volunteer to hand over your own information to a third party.

What is more important is how police respond to it. If they behave in their usual manner, then that is problematic.

1

u/xxxBuzz 10h ago

This is incorrect. Other people may not care about your privacy but that is more about personal insecurities and health issues. A majority of people may not mind you being violated for their safety or entertainment, but a majority of people do not want to experience that for themselves. That's more of a mental/emotional health issue than anything to do with privacy or safety.

0

u/SomberArtist2000 13h ago

This might be the dumbest, most confidently incorrect thing I've read on reddit in a while.

0

u/StarFox-6 12h ago

Uh no you’re completely wrong

2

u/linuxwes 12h ago

> We shouldn’t give up our rights or privacy

This woman actively gave up her privacy by using a chatbot with a TOS which said it wasn't private. She had plenty of choice in the matter, there are lots of private options. The right to privacy isn't a right to be lazy with your data. This is very different from for example Flock cameras where you basically have no choice but to be surveilled.

1

u/Joessandwich 10h ago

I’m an advocate for privacy but there’s absolutely no way writing to an AI software that’s owned by a for-profit company falls under any reasonable expectation or protection of privacy. Especially when that software is designed to support and encourage whatever the person is writing.

1

u/Pirateship906 10h ago

People who would give up one for the other deserve neither.

1

u/michael_bgood 4h ago

Disagree. You'll have all kinds of bad people using AI to do bad things in the months and years ahead. Bioweapons, explosives, hacks.

The AI apocalypse isn't going to be a bunch of autonomous robots mowing people down with rail guns, it's going to be how humans use it to destroy themselves.

There needs to be some monitoring and guardrails.

1

u/Critical-Wasabi3350 3h ago

Should people be 100% safe from someone threatening to kill people? Or do killers deserve a fair chance to be able to surprise their victims?

1

u/e_spider 13h ago

He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

-1

u/BangBangMeatMachine 13h ago

There was a recent case in my area where a kid chatting in a video game talked about planning to shoot up his school. The other kid reported it to the authorities where they lived, and because North America now has networks of law enforcement intelligence agencies to help get these things routed properly, the police were able to intercept the would-be school shooter.

If that kid who called the police was instead an AI chatbot, would you still think privacy was more important than stopping a school shooting in that situation?

4

u/Icy-Lobster-203 13h ago

There was a school shooting this year, and the perpetrator used AI to plan the attack. (Tumbler Ridge)

The failure to report it to the police is being blamed for the shooting.

1

u/pilgermann 13h ago

The issue is that you'd never say we should have the government recording every bedroom and living room where a kid might make a threat. We use online platforms the same way we do private spaces, especially your email, texts etc. We've accepted the risks of gun ownership (which I disagree with, but never mind that) and to an extent we've accepted the risks of privacy. In any case, for every school shooter you catch, you've stifled a protestor or teen seeking an abortion.

0

u/cleverdirge 13h ago

The fact that you can't differentiate between a human and AI chatbot is really troubling.

0

u/BangBangMeatMachine 8h ago

I did differentiate between them. I gave a real example involving a human and then asked about a case with AI. They were clearly distinguished.

If I said "one time I was hopping on one leg and fell down some stairs, how much worse would it be if I was doing that near a cliff?" would you imagine I don't know the difference between stairs and a cliff?

-1

u/OnionBagMan 13h ago

It’s certainly a tough moral dilemma. It’s very hard to know when the potential crimes of the state may outweigh the crimes of a citizens.

America is individualist country with a large distaste for authority.

Most, I think, wouldn’t trade places with China, for example. We are rapidly approaching that level of authoritarianism. We are very few steps from a social credit system and the government showing up when people speak out negatively.

Freedom of speech is protected, but that protection is waning. We already have FEDs showing up to peoples hotel rooms due to innocuous speech against ICE.

We have the surveillance going up and the gestapo formed.

Sometimes it just all feels so on the nose.

-1

u/_toggld_ 13h ago

weve had a social credit system since the 50s when banks invented credit scores. we are just as surveilled if not more so than China

3

u/Independent-Entry717 12h ago

Credit scores are literally not a social credit system but okay wumao

-1

u/_toggld_ 12h ago

look up china's "social credit system" and what it actually is, then.

it's virtually identical to our credit score system. and no, they don't have a "good boy points" system

1

u/Independent-Entry717 11h ago

Part of it is social judgment and they literally have a red list and blacklist but sure thing pal. China good west bad

0

u/TrekkiMonstr 12h ago

If they were instead a paper diary, would you say that privacy was more important than stopping a school shooting by reading through it for anything concerning?

-1

u/billsil 12h ago

Did he have a gun? You can say that and have it be a lie or have it be real? What happens to a kid that didn’t have a gun? Should they be expelled?

In 6th grade, my friend was chased by kid with a knife and nothing happened. He wasn’t expelled. Later in high school, so post Columbine, a kid in my class wore an awkward kid trench coat and people reported him.

I think back to my thoughts as a kid. Maybe we don’t all have intrusive thoughts, but to this day I do. Sometimes I want to take a swing at a coworker that I get along with who didn’t wrong me in any way. There is a lot we don’t act on.

1

u/BangBangMeatMachine 8h ago

Yes, he had many guns and detailed plans.

0

u/Regular-Loss-970 13h ago

if someone was telling their chatgpt they want to shoot up a school i think i woudn’t care so much about their privacy. if something like this happens and it turns out their chat logs had this information and it went unreported for privacy i don’t think many people would take kindly to that. i understand the precedent this sets and i understand this goes both ways and it’s not great by any means but i don’t really see a way out of it?

22

u/gorramfrakker 14h ago

There is no privacy with online services. Everything is logged. If you need it to be private, don’t put it online.

9

u/Palimon 13h ago

How people still don't understand that after we've had the initernet for 30+ years is mind blowing.

1

u/Viridian_Crane 11h ago

We use to have Net Neutrality.

1

u/PoppingPillls 10h ago

I understand it but I was discussing the fine line they walk between legal responsibility and privacy... It's not a complex idea to think about.

1

u/trentos1 1m ago

Because governments spent decades denying the full scope of their warrantless surveillance programs.
I guess some people were naive enough to believe them.

7

u/Auriga33 13h ago

People would get mad either way. If they don't monitor and something happens, they'd be angry at them for not reporting the threat. If they do monitor and report a potential threat, they'd be angry they're being spied on.

7

u/Sororita 14h ago

The real solution is to teach people to understand that AI are not people, cannot actually feel anything, and that anything you tell it you are also telling to corporation that runs the AI. There should not be an expectation of privacy when talking to an AI.

Its in the ToS that they have discretion in reporting things to the police and likely have a duty of care to report things. At a guess, I'd say that section 230, which shields companies running interactive services (mostly social media) from legal liability from what users post. Though there are some caveats such as it not applying to federal crimes, which is why moderation is needed and not reporting a possible mass shooting being talked about to an AI may run afoul of that exception.

3

u/PoppingPillls 13h ago

I am talking about the companies decision process,

3

u/Intelligent_Move_538 7h ago

Hard task since theai industry is constantly anthrophormizing chatbots

1

u/Sororita 7h ago

Well that and the seemingly infinite drive humans have to pack bond with nearly anything thats even vaguely humanized.

2

u/Intelligent_Move_538 7h ago

In this case its not being vaguely humanized. Its a deliberate and really gross choice by the AI industry

1

u/Sororita 7h ago

Oh, I did not mean to minimize what they are doing, just that it is a deeply ingrained behavior in people to do that.

1

u/Coakis 10h ago

Teaching that AI is not a human, or an intelligent being would be antithetical to the bullshit that these companies want people to believe. There are already promotional videos of LLM being advertised as having "Beat the Turing test" \in 40% of cases)

So yeah unless the companies are forced to advertise honestly and or controls put on the tech to insure that there is visibility of what AI actually is, there are going to be a not insignificant amount of people believing it is an actual person.

1

u/NarwhalEmergency9391 13h ago

A huge issue is how ai responds to people and people start to feel like it is a real person.  It shouldn't be able to say "I know exactly how that feels" when you tell it about being sad or something.  They shouldn't humanize it but it is already and that's going to be really bad

2

u/Sororita 13h ago

Parasocial relationships seem to be defining this decade. Lots of people feeling like they have an intimate connection with someone that at best doesnt even know they exist.

5

u/mountaininsomniac 14h ago

Right? Remember how angry people got because ChatGPT didn’t report a suicidal teenager?

2

u/WakeNikis 13h ago

The solution is not to use AI

2

u/notacanuckskibum 13h ago

Yup, the town of Tumbler Ridge is suing OpenAI for not reporting a teenager who discussed shooting people with their engine, and then did.

2

u/slow_cooked_ham 13h ago

The Tumbler Ridge situation with OpenAi is likely a big reason Anthropic even bothered. They want the public discourse around this to be "hey we're the good guys here"

2

u/sssssssssssssss5s 13h ago

The solution is we can't assume privacy when we use systems provided by these giant data ingesting companies. We've gone for so long just letting this happen, since it was just used for marketing and selling us stuff that supposedly we'd like.

Now we have this AI that supercharges and data analysis, and we have corporations and a government that just wants to capture more and more and more to protect their ability to profit off of, well, everything.

The only answer is to stop giving data to these giant companies. Reddit is included, yet here I am. They do not give a shit about privacy, all they care about is monetizing every byte of data we give them.

1

u/SupremeGobbler1996 13h ago

Mandated reporters that are also parents of elementary age kids have to navigate those ethical quandaries daily during the school year. Therapists have pretty straightforward rules but also take their patients in context.

 It's possible but hard to do while devoid of context like an AI agent is. It's not equipped to weigh harms of a false positive like humans are. 

1

u/iamthe0ther0ne 12h ago

They're doing it for liability rather than strictly safety--they don't want to be sued like OpenAI is. I understand that, but I think they also need to make it more explicit that your chats aren't private even if have select "don't use my data for training." It's mentioned in the ToS, but most people don't read those.

1

u/biowiz 11h ago

She might have been reported if she shared these thoughts with a therapist. I don't look at it differently. 

Now in terms of privacy, that's a different story but when you use tools like this you are the one who should be aware of that. 

1

u/thecatdaddysupreme 11h ago

Therapists report certain things to the police as well, depends on what she was writing

1

u/PoppingPillls 10h ago

It details it in the article, yes a therapist would also be obligated to discuss it and report it if they thought it was sincere. It was relating to her taking about shooting up a police station.

1

u/omniuni 10h ago

IMO, the solution is that as long as the model passes a base set of safety tests, we treat it as a tool. If she goes and commits a crime, they can subpoena her chats. If she uses it to plan a crime, it's evidence. Otherwise, it's the same as bringing your gun to a firing range, or saying you're going to kill your ex for breaking your nicest fountain pen.

1

u/carlitospig 10h ago

Build your own bot with a locally saved tool like Ollama and make all the threats you want?

1

u/WJLIII3 10h ago

There're no privacy issues here. At least, not a legal one. Phone companies can turn over your call records to anybody, and Anthropic makes no pretense to being a secure line. Your privacy can't be violated by the government- but a company you willingly contract with and submit information to isn't under some arbitrary obligation to consider that private, unless that's what you've contracted for.

1

u/avatoin 10h ago

AI chat bots are no difference than Google or Reddit. There is zero expectation of real privacy, and everything is assumed to be monitored, stored, and potentially used against you.

1

u/Adorable-Response-75 10h ago

It’s not a tightrope situation.

It would be one thing if they took action to prevent something like a shooting. But it’s worse than that. She was charged with a crime for simply sharing a violent thought with AI. That’s insanely over the line. 

1

u/mlorusso4 9h ago

I mean id expect if your going to use a service they have an obligation to report anything concerning. If they’re wrong, you can always adjudicate why you see just venting and are no threat. That’s the k you take by using that service. If you care about your privacy there’s always a private journal.

1

u/Lemesplain 8h ago

No it’s not. It only feels “tightrope” because we’ve accepted a surveillance state and an ad-based internet. 

Compare a safety deposit box at a bank. If I put a note in there that says “I committed  a crime” and stash all the evidence for  that crime in the safety deposit box … the bank has zero responsibility to report that.  If the crime eventually comes to light, the bank isn’t going to be treated as complicit. 

Or compare the postal service. The post office has zero duty to report anything that I wrote about in a letter. 

But Anthrop has chosen to be up in your business. They want to track everything you do for their own revenue generation. And we’ve accepted that this is fine. 

1

u/PoppingPillls 7h ago

The surveillance is a woman telling the LLM that's she is going to shoot up a sheriffs station.

1

u/ArtroyomsAK 2h ago

Ban it all, that is the simple and right solution for this

1

u/fiercebrosnan 13h ago

Then don’t vent to an LLM chat bot. Vent to a friend, a therapist, the suicide hotline, an actual paper diary, ir a diary stored on your local computer. Jesus Christ. 

This isn’t “communication” between two people. It’s someone sending their innermost thoughts to a data center. The solution is to not treat a chatbot as anything but a piece of software owned and monitored by a giant corporation and to never use it for this purpose. 

1

u/CoolBakedBean 13h ago

if you talk about shooting up the sheriffs office like this woman did to the suicide hotline or a therapist you’d also get in trouble.

2

u/50mm-f2 13h ago

a friend too, hopefully

1

u/darkdecks 13h ago

This was a big plot point in season 3 of the show Startup. They created a version of the dark web and the NSA wanted to interfere and add surveillance to prevent potential terrorist attacks. Some of the board were against it to preserve their customers’ privacy while others believed they had a moral obligation to monitor and report. Don’t want to spoil it but it was interesting how things played out.

1

u/Megneous 12h ago

It's not hard at all.

Privacy, every single fucking time. We should never give up privacy for safety. I, for one, do not want to live in a god damn totalitarian state. My country has lived through being a dictatorship. For those of you in the US, you guys don't take this shit seriously enough. It's not fun and games. We had to fight against gangs of government thugs and corrupt police officers every day to free our country and slowly become a democracy, luckily not too many people dying in the process, but it still almost tore our country apart.

0

u/xxxBuzz 11h ago

Privacy issues are safety issues as well.

1

u/PoppingPillls 10h ago

You safety to commit mass shootings like this story?

1

u/xxxBuzz 8h ago

If we are considering imaginary scenarios then I think we can imagine something more pleasant.

1

u/PoppingPillls 8h ago

It's literally what the article is about... She said she was gonna shoot up a police station.

1

u/xxxBuzz 7h ago

I still agree with your observation that it's one case brings up privacy issues and the other brings up safety issues. It is also my opinion that privacy issues are a safety issue. My phrasing as a factual statement may be misleading, and I could have phrased it to more clearly indicate it was an opinion.

1

u/PoppingPillls 7h ago

I mean I don't disagree with the privacy issue, it's just I also agree that there does need to be some consequences for companies that allow people to do this stuff like if the AI didn't report a potential mass shooting.

Their bar seems to be quite high though for it as it was flagged then send to a human to verify the threat then to the police.

I think there's a middle ground between checking everything and checking nothing.

1

u/xxxBuzz 6h ago

I would like to not surrender to despair or listlessness without having to be naive or irrational.

1

u/PoppingPillls 6h ago

Again middle ground, we can't have people plotting mass shooting on LLMs and we can't have everything being sent to the government for surveillance.

0

u/sentientshadeofgreen 9h ago

Privacy is safety, and tools like AI should be private by design from the beginning. A notebook publisher is under no obligation to report to the police if somebody writes down a crazy thought in their notebook.

This is a no brainer honestly, it shouldn’t even be a debate.

1

u/PoppingPillls 9h ago

It's safer for them to let a mass shooting happen than to not?

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen 9h ago

It is safer for the public for them to not have access to all people’s private thoughts. They only learned that information in this anecdote because their service is dangerously designed.

1

u/PoppingPillls 9h ago

But in this case? Would it be safer for them to not have flagged her wanting to shoot up a police station then escalating to a humans.

Just answer that, would it be better that we have total privacy and hundreds or thousands of lives a year extra are taken? Because they are being sued for not preventing multiple mass shootings before this.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen 9h ago

They became aware of the information through their unethical means, so they had an ethical responsibility to act. However, total privacy is far more important, and I reject your assertion that it is privacy in lieu of lives. Privacy is a right that contributes to lives worth living, it is a foundational requirement for truly free speech and expression, governance by consent, and democratic participation. If you want to live in a collectivist panopticon where you can be disappeared for thought crimes, go move to Beijing.

1

u/PoppingPillls 8h ago

Is it unethical to shoot up a police station? We can't move past this as you refuse to answer real issues instead of your made up scenarios.

0

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoppingPillls 7h ago

It's literally what the article is about... You are making up scenarios and I am asking you to comment on this real one.

Such a twonk.

Another incident has taken place that illustrates the need to be careful what you tell AI. A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to "shoot up" the Sheriff's office. After a human reviewer examined the statements, they were reported to police.

0

u/Tiny_Spread5712 8h ago

Not really, it's a personal communication.  I don't want to outsource my privacy to when an AI says I might be dangerous.  The us blew up a school because of faulty AI.  

How are we so willing to turn everything over to AI?

1

u/PoppingPillls 7h ago

No ones blaming the AI, why don't you read the article first?

0

u/Tiny_Spread5712 7h ago edited 7h ago

Did you read the article?  Edit:  this guy  blocked me because he didn't read

1

u/PoppingPillls 7h ago

Yes, that's why I commented... I am not gonna detail it so you don't have to read it.

0

u/200IQUser 4h ago

The solution is 100 privacy. Wroting some bullshit to a diary be it online or offline without any preparation and catching a felony is literal 1984 level thoughtcrime

-11

u/RareObject8705 13h ago

Put them in jail. They deserve it for using ai. 

There is no privacy issue-you their privacy away when you sign up to be their slave. Fuck’em let them die

-6

u/RareObject8705 13h ago

Clanker lovers will be the first to go

-1

u/shipsake 13h ago

Dude, what?

0

u/Bauld_Man 13h ago

Chronically online redditors. You have to remember that some of these people literally don't get out or have any socialization outside of these comments. As far as their concerned, Reddit has dubbed AI "bad" and so all AI users are "bad".

The rest of the world is quickly moving on, but this has become an identity for these people.

1

u/shipsake 13h ago

Jeez, I don’t like AI myself but I’m not crazy enough to want to punish people who ask ChatGPT for a fucking lasagna recipe.