zlacker

"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+(OP)
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).

>>fluori+(OP)
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+Et
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.

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

>>fluori+Kv
Then I’m confused about what is confusing you haha.

The absurd language is meant to highlight the absurdity they feel over the vague terms in their sparse communication with anthropic. It worked for me.

>>mattne+PC
Because what is meant by "this organization has been disabled" is fairly obvious. The object in Anthropic's systems belonging to the class Organization has changed to the state Disabled, so the call cannot be executed. Anthropic itself is not an organization in this sense, nor is Google, so I would say that referring to them as "non-disabled organizations" is an equivocation fallacy. Besides that, I can't tell if it's a joke, if it's some kind of statement, or what is being communicated. To me it's just obtuseness for the sake of itself.

>>fluori+(OP)
He used “organization” because that’s what Anthropic called him, despite the fact he is a person and not an “organization”.

>>quiets+YD
No, Anthropic didn't call him an organization. Anthropic's API returned the error "this organization has been disabled". What in that sentence implies that "this" is any human?

>Because what is meant by "this organization has been disabled" is fairly obvious. The object in Anthropic's systems belonging to the class Organization has changed to the state Disabled, so the call cannot be executed.

>>fluori+RD
>To me it's just obtuseness for the sake of itself.

ironic, isn't it?

>>fluori+RD
It’s a joke because they do not see themselves as an organization, they bought a personal account, were banned without explanation and their only communication refers to them as a “disabled organization”.

Anthropic and Google are organizations, and so an “un disabled organization” here is using that absurdly vague language as a way to highlight how bad their error message was. It’s obtuseness to show how obtuse the error message was to them.

>>quiets+YD
Yes, even if you create a single person account, you create an 'organization' to be billed. That's the whole confusion here. Y'all seemingly don't have an account at anthropic?

>>fluori+(OP)
Is it? It sounded to me like they're still using the other Claude instance (Claude B, using their terminology in the article). I could be wrong though, which I guess would just be more evidence that they were more confusing in their phrasing than they needed to be.

>>fluori+Gv
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.

>>mattne+zK
Some things are obtuse but still clear to everyone despite the indirection, like the error message they got back. Their description of what caused it is obtuse but based on this thread is not clear to quite a few people (myself included). It's not dunking on the error message to reuse the silly but clear terminology in a way that's borderline incoherent.

>>saghm+ae1
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+sh1
I’m sorry but the fact this has turned into a multi comment debate is proof that that phrase was way too ambiguous to be included. That phrase made no sense and the article, while unreliable, would have at least been more readable without it.

>>fluori+Kv
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.

>>fluori+sh1
Just want to say thank you for being patient and rational. Reading your comments in this thread, they're like a soothing bandaid over all this flustered upset.

I wish there were more comments like yours, and fewer people getting upset over words and carrying what feels like resentment into public comments.

Apologies to all for this meta comment, but I'd like to send some public appreciation for this effort.

>>hluska+Zw1
No argument there.

>>fluori+sh1
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+AW2
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.