2 ms·
>For example, our systems sometimes failed to flag violating content when the user asked Claude to translate from one language to another. Clio, however, spotte
by orbital-decay 2y ago
>For example, our systems sometimes failed to flag violating content when the user asked Claude to translate from one language to another. Clio, however, spotted these conversations.
Why do they even consider translation of existing content "harmful", policy-wise? The content already exists. No machine translator I know would refuse translating something based on the content. That makes their language models unpredictable in one of their major use cases.
- noworriesnate 2y agoI'm adjacent to the world of sign language translators in the US. They are legally obligated to translate EVERYTHING, regardless of whether it's legal or not, and they also have to maintain client secrecy. I personally know some who have facilitated drug deals and another who has facilitated an illegal discussion about Trump. We decided as a society that we're not going to use translation services to catch citizens in crime. This AI situation is so much milder--we're talking about censoring stuff that is "harmful", not illegal. The content is not being published by Anthropic--it's up to the users to publish it or not. We seriously need regulations around AI "safety" because of the enormous influence they bear on all human discourse.
- nozzlegear 2y agoPresumably human interpreters aren't prone to hallucinating things when providing their services, right? That's probably one of the key differentiators.