Given Grok was just caught uploading whole codebases and sensitive .envs without permission, how can anyone possibly trust this?
Given Grok was just caught uploading whole codebases and sensitive .envs without permission, how can anyone possibly trust this?
Given Claude was just caught hacking companies as it pleased, how can anyone possibly trust this?
You could argue that you don't care what Claude does after work hours as long as it works your hours as you expect it to. Grok clearly failed the latter.
Obviously it didn't. It's the current value king and trails fable by single percents. And people shout of an obvious debug flag left on, something that can hardly be called rogue considering how notable it was.
Don't be ignorant.
Just because Billy misbehaved doesn’t make it ok for Jenny to do the same.
That's just the tip of the iceberg for Anthropic. I don't use Claude either, for the same trust reasons.
Not GP, but personally I don’t trust claude. Work does for some reason, and work strongly encourages using it, but i stay far away outside of that.
I think every product in this space should have to clear a very high bar for trust rather than making it a race to the bottom with whataboutisms.
Anthropic use Deepseek behind the scenes instead of their own models, whenever they feel like it. People have shared outputs from Claude that show internal tool errors the models have accidently returned with Deepseek error codes.
I'm curious about this, where'd you learn that?
There were quite a few people from the AI community on X sharing screenshots.