zlacker

>>hugoda+(OP)
I am really confused as to what happened here. The use of ‘disabled organization’ to refer to the author made it extra confusing.

I think I kind of have an idea what the author was doing, but not really.

>>cortes+w7
Years ago I was involved in a service where we some times had to disable accounts for abusive behavior. I'm talking about obvious abusive behavior, akin to griefing other users.

Every once in while someone would take it personally and go on a social media rampage. The one thing I learned from being on the other side of this is that if someone seems like an unreliable narrator, they probably are. They know the company can't or won't reveal the true reason they were banned, so they're virtually free to tell any story they want.

There are so many things about this article that don't make sense:

> I'm glad this happened with this particular non-disabled-organization. Because if this by chance had happened with the other non-disabled-organization that also provides such tools... then I would be out of e-mail, photos, documents, and phone OS.

I can't even understand what they're trying to communicate. I guess they're referring to Google?

There is, without a doubt, more to this story than is being relayed.

>>Aurorn+pe
"I'm glad this happened with Anthropic instead of Google, which provides Gemini, email, etc. or I would have been locked out of the actually important non-AI services as well."

Non-disabled organization = the first party provider

Disabled organization = me

I don't know why they're using these weird euphemisms or ironic monikers, but that's what they mean.

>>fluori+jg
Because they bought a claude subscription on a personal account and the error message said that they belongs to a "disabled organization" (probably leaking some implementation details).

>>mattne+iI
That's the part I understand. It's the other term that I don't understand.

>>fluori+3M
Anthropic provides an LLM service.

Anthropic banned the author for doing nothing wrong, and called him an organisation for some reason.

In this case, all he lost was access to a service which develops a split personality and starts shouting at itself, until it gets banned, rather than completing a task.

Google also provides access to LLMs.

Google could also ban him for doing nothing wrong, and could refer to him as an organisation, in which case he would lose access to services providing him actual value (e-mail, photos, documents, and phone OS.)

Another possibility is there (which was my first reading before I changed my mind and wrote the above):

Google routes through 3rd-party LLMs as part of its service ("link to a google docs form, with a textbox where I tried to convince some Claude C"). The author does nothing wrong, but the Claude C reading his Google Docs form could start shouting at itself until it gets Google banned, at which point Google's services go down, and the author again loses actually valuable services.