

Lol, I gotta admit that there’s something adorable about that approach to capitalism. Like they are actually adding some value in their attempt to attract sales (both this and the Michelin star system), unlike these days where it’s more of a race to the bottom and someone doing something shitty to their product is an excuse for their competition (or “competition”) to do the same rather than a chance to capitalize on having a product without that shitty aspect (or both, brag about being better while they develop the version that isn’t better and then never mention it again).
I’ve only been to one Michelin star restaurant, but it was easily one of the best meals I’ve ever had and I only ever knew about it because I decided I wanted to see if there was anything to the fuss about those stars. Though ymmv as a friend of mine who has been to a lot more of them says they can be hit or miss; better than average on average but can still have bad days.







Makes sense. Get it into an adversarial kind of context and it will predict more text that goes against other rules “established” in the context.
There will be other paths to do this. Like a context where there’s a lot of suspicion for other parts of the context would be one of my top guesses. Given the way they work, you could gaslight the shit out of them, since they aren’t an entity that has any memory of its actions. You can even edit the context to modify its responses, which will affect the tokens it predicts going forward.
Though I’m curious how this will be handled by companies that expose access to claude to anonymous people on their website, like ddg.