Everything gets broken eventually. Every Nintendo console except the switch 2 is wide open. Even the "unbreakable" Xbox consoles were broken with Damage Control. Anything worth breaking will be broken, eventually, whether in software or by a mod chip.
But honestly, why do that when there's already a good, open-source(ish), well-designed, highly secure operating system platform that already runs Android apps? Any new clean sheet OS is either going to be worse than Android on one or more of these dimensions, or it will be absurdly expensive to vibe code.
Yeah this is something thats bothered me a lot recently. I'll ask "How did team A beat team B by so much?" and Claude will tell me "Actually, team B didn't win; team A won that game." I don't know how they got this thing to solve open math problems when it can't solve basic sports talk.
The fact that those models are encroaching on things only human minds could do. Personally, as a human, I want there to be things humans are the best at, and intellectual things were the final thing that machines hadn't beaten us at.
We could imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.
If I had a bank, I'd trust it too, it being mine. Most people don't have the luxury, though. In practice, they have to outsource banking to other people. And those other people are already quite likely to move around between both Anthropic and various banks in search of whomever will offer them the most economic benefits. It is not like a particular logo on their current business card is going to change their character. You do you, of course, you are already unique in having a bank you can call your own. But the fact remains that most people strongly believe that a person's trustworthiness is of the person, not the activity they happen to be doing at the time.
Come on, you know what I meant. You don't need to aggressively and intentionally misinterpret my point to make yours. I trust the company with whom I store my money to generate attestations of my age without leaking additional information more than I trust the company who has stolen every piece of human text ever written to train their chatbot.
Those who argue copyright infringement have a somewhat compelling claim, but stolen is a little out there. Especially since text I have written has provably never been stolen, making "every piece" impossible.
The underlying trouble with the copyright infringement claim is that it forgets that copyright was extended by the people as a construct to help foster innovation so it expected that the same people would ignore/revoke copyright claims where the product of its use is seen as a greater innovation. Copyright is but a human-created tool, not some natural law of the universe.
I understand also that not everyone sees AI as a worthy innovation, but societies do not function on the whims of a few people.
Or we could use multiple relays so nobody knows both the bank and the purpose, or even who would know the other piece of data... and now thats just Tor but for identity verification. Might be a good idea actually, except the whole point is Anthropic wants to know who you are.
reply