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
No, "another non-disabled organization" sounds like they used the account of someone else, or sockpuppet to craft the response. He was using "organization" to refer to himself earlier in the post, so it doesn't make sense to use that to refer to another model provider.

>>gruez+XJ
No, I don't think so. I think my interpretation is correct.

> a textbox where I tried to convince some Claude C in the multi-trillion-quadrillion dollar non-disabled organization

> So I wrote to their support, this time I wrote the text with the help of an LLM from another non-disabled organization.

> My guess is that this likely tripped the "Prompt Injection" heuristics that the non-disabled organization has.

A "non-disabled organization" is just a big company. Again, I don't understand the why, but I can't see any other way to interpret the term and end up with a coherent idea.

>>fluori+ZL
It seems just as likely to me that they're just using their terminology inconsistently as it is that they're using it consistently but with that egregious amount of ambiguity. The only thing that I'm confident about is that they're communicating in a very confusing way, and that doesn't really give me any strong insight into whether they're being consistent but vague or just plain vague.

>>saghm+tu1
Again, I don't agree. If you replace every instance of "non-disabled organization" with just "company", the sentences make sense. There's no need to suppose that the term means anything else, when this interpretation resolves all the outstanding questions satisfactorily and simply.

>>fluori+Lx1
Sure, but that's not what they said, which is why it's confusing. Earlier in the article they referred to themselves as the "disabled organization", so it's not obvious to me that there's change in what they mean by the word to an entirely different one. Your explanation is plausible and consistent, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, and I don't think that being internally consistent is sufficient evidence to conclude that something is true.

>>saghm+Tc3
Okay, but if you won't be satisfied by a plausible and consistent answer then you won't be satisfied by any answer. Even if the author themselves stood in front of you and told you what they meant when they used the phrase, that would still be unsatisfactory because they could still be using language inconsistently and incorrectly.