I assume it means they are not sure it gives them a speed up. Which, since I don't know what they are trying to do, may be reasonable.

It works out to about 0.8% of Liberia's GDP. The Marshall Islands number works out to about 15% of the estimated value of the amount of financial assistance the US gives them.

Those numbers in no way indicate that Liberia spent 10% of its gdp lobbying the US. It looks like approximately 0.8%, which is still fantastically high

You are right, of course. Thanks for the correction. I will try to switch on my brain before posting next time.

It's an easy, and common, mistake to make. Sorry for the tone.

> they're not training on the data

How would you know that? You can only know what they say they will do with the data.

Sure, some trust is required that they aren't breaking their own terms of service (which legally enforces that they won't train on your data), but the same is true of every company/service you deal with (AWS, Google, your CRM etc). Their entire business model depends on enterprises trusting them.

>some trust is required that they aren't breaking their own terms of service

Which companies do all the time...

But if you're going to take your distrust that far then the issue is that they have your data at all, not that they are telling you that they will retain it for 30 days.

Civilization is built on trust, otherwise you’ll need to rebuild all of it yourself. This isn’t very different.

Civilization is also built on cheating and taking advantage of naive trust. This isn’t very different.

If that were dominantly true nothing would function at all. You trust and rely on thousands of people and services every day.

As others have said, if you're this skeptical I don't see why you would have been using them before this retention increase.

>If that were dominantly true nothing would function at all

And yet it is, and most things still function. Now what?

>You trust and rely on thousands of people and services every day

And I, and everybody else, distrusts and tries not to rely on thousands of people and services every day too.

Do you lock your car? Or your door? Do you use your username as password trusting nobody would stoop so low as to break it? Do you trust the goverment to put your tax money to good use? Do you trust emails with great offers from websites you didn't subscribe to? Do you trust companies not to sell your personal data?

>As others have said, if you're this skeptical I don't see why you would have been using them before this retention increase.

Because they have a technically more capable offering. For absolutely no other reason.

We’ve repeatedly watched that trust abused and exploited in these last few years, in both public and private sectors (including specifically in this field). I broadly agree with you, but I tend to think it’s a finite resource that’s eroding rapidly just now.

If that is the question. Those customers anyway won't be using any LLM or cloud services in first place. If you are a jornalist investigating nations, stay away from everything.

If you don't trust them, then no policy is enough. Technically everything you send to the model could be stored by them. Personally I do worry about that especially as an average consumer not an enterprise, no one is looking out for us and we don't get any guarantees. But enterprises will get the right treatment because they would find out and sue Anthropic if they lied.

>If you don't trust them, then no policy is enough.

No policy is enough, period. There should be technical and legal solutions to it.

There should be legal ramifications if they don't do what they say, but the practical solution is "don't use it".

I mean, if we're assuming they're just willing to lie and violate their own TOS then how could you ever be comfortable with them regardless of this 30 day period (or really any online service)? This seems like a bit of a silly take.

You could maintain a short SpaceX portion in the approximately same percentage as your NASDAQ ETF. You'd have more slight tax events as you increased or closed out that short position to maintain the percentage, but significantly less than your NASDAQ position's taxes. Then when you sell your ETF you could close out the short to effectively remove SpaceX from the equation.

People hate AI datacenters in their backyard. From a business perspective, I hope "obey the local zoning laws" is a fairly high priority.

I don't hate the data centers near me. However I do hate the tax incentives they were given. My local school district could really use those millions of dollars per year that someone decided we don't get.

If you hate the subsidies they were given to locate next to you, how is that different from hating the data centers?

If they were not given subsidies I'd have no problem with them.

And those tons of websites are liable for their misinformation. It's probably not worth suing some random blog because the author probably doesn't have money or lives in Russia. But Google has lots of money and a legal presence in almost every jurisdiction.

It's why people say "Donald Trump was held civilly liable for sexual assault in the E Jean Carroll case" instead of "Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll"

There are a lot of people who consider no ai to be a positive state. So "you will receive nothing" may not be perceived as the threat you think it is.

Craigslist became popular when that was the clean look for a website, and then never bothered updating. Network effects in action.

Temu offers people the ability to save money. If your product is "X, but cheaper" you can have a worse UI than X.

Amazon is a hideous looking website too and always has been. Ebay is similar too in that aspect and plenty of others.

They were established when hideous websites were common changing would cause uproar and possibly alienate a large group of users. Look at Googles web page just a text box on a blank page, no way you are launching with that UI in 2026.

Property rights would inherit. So one of their relatives or heirs. If they had no one to inherit the restriction it would go to the state - but the state would have gotten the land unrestricted in that case anyway.