One aspect the report is very vague about is the nature of the monitoring Anthropic is doing on Claude Code. If they can detect attacks they can surely detect other things of interest (or value) to them. Is there any more information about this?
The rhetoric you see in some places about how social assistance is used on hair weaves says something about the underlying reasons for much of this concern.
Remember the only reason we have school lunch programs in the US at all is because the Black Panthers started a free breakfast program for black children in the 70s and the government wanted to undermine the political and propaganda power the Black Panthers had gained through that and other social programs. So the government created its own, then Reagan underfunded it.
No, that is not true. The first school lunch programs started with private initiatives in the 1890s. The first major federal program for student lunches was the National School Lunch Program enacted in 1946. That has since been updated several times: the Child Nutrition Act in 1966, the Child Care Food Program in 1975, etc.
What you're saying doesn't contradict the argument that the goal was do outdo the black panther lunch programs.
Certainly I'd like to read more about the idea before I buy into it, but it does make a lot of sense - schools in black neighborhoods are chronically underfunded and the black panthers were first and foremost a direct action and mutual aid group, and furthermore the USA government viewed them as a huge threat to government authority and did many things to attempt to undermine the black panthers... Including outright assassination.
> [Original, emphasis added]: the only reason we have school lunch programs in the US at all is because the Black Panthers started a free breakfast program for black children in the 70s
> [Response, emphasis added]: The first school lunch programs started with private initiatives in the 1890s. The first major federal program for student lunches was the National School Lunch Program enacted in 1946
Are you saying that the government started trying to one-up the Black Panther school lunches 30 years before the Black Panthers started offering them?
Is it possible that the people in charge of school lunches in the 1970s viewed the Black Panther program as some kind of competition? Sure. Was the 1970s Black Panther program "the only reason" the US started a national school lunch program in the 1940s? I don't see how that would be possible.
> the only reason we have school lunch programs in the US at all is because the Black Panthers started a free breakfast program for black children in the 70s
> The first school lunch programs started with private initiatives in the 1890s. The first major federal program for student lunches was the National School Lunch Program enacted in 1946
How does the existence of a food program in the 1890s, or 1946, automatically invalidate the notion that the promulgation of the food programs into 2025 is due to the efforts of the black panthers? Similarly, one could attribute gun control laws in California to the black panthers focus on arming black neighborhoods, rather than some kind of liberal anti-gun attitude.
> automatically invalidate the notion that the promulgation
Goes the other way around too? Regardless government continuing doing what they were already doing for the past half century seems reasonable. Without any additional evidence that seems like an inherently much more valid argument that attributing it to the Black Panthers. So equating them seems disingenuous...
In a legal case? You question the authors under oath, subpoena communications records, billing records, etc.
If there's even a hint that you used AI output in the work and you failed to disclose it to the US Copyright Office, they can cancel your registration.
There is another factor to consider. The stakes of asking an AI about a taboo topic are generally considered to be very low. The number of people who have asked ChatGPT something like "how to make a nuclear bomb" should not be an indication of the number of people seriously considering doing that.
That’s an extreme example where it’s clear to the vast majority of people asking the question that they probably do not have the means to make one. I think it’s more likely that real world actions come out of the question ‘how do I approach my neighbour about their barking dogs’ at a far higher rate. Suicide is somewhere between the two, but probably closer to the latter than the former.
The thing is, a software based voting system with a sufficient number of checks and balances preventing tampering seems to be a lot more trustworthy to me than human poll watchers and workers. It wouldn't surprise me at this point that there may be moles in parties that are secretly from the other party.
And the other related issue is that in 2025, it simply should be possible to vote from your phone in a way that verifies your identity, if you'd like, using the faceId/fingerprint biometrics that most smartphones from recent years have.
An election needs to be trusted by everyone, and explainable to all voters. It does not help that you believe it is safe. You have to trust the compiler, and the chips, and everything, and convince all voters it works.
Paper ballots are fine. It is not complicated at all and an election is the one thing you just cannot get wrong in a representative democracy. It can cost a bit and you only do it once every few years.
The obvious problem with smartphone voting is that it's hard to combine with voter secrecy. An abusive spouse or someone bribing the voter could demand to see what vote was cast.
And if anyone can make up a reason to doubt the outcome of the election, it will fail it's objective: Peaceful transfer of power.
The usual way to try to solve this is the ability to override previously cast votes, in secret. But the combination of that and the ability for all interested parties to independently verify the count is not trivial. But not impossible either, much has been written on the subject since e-voting was all the rage in the 90s. One would do good to study this work before designing yet another voting system.
MCP is a protocol meant for general use for clients, which Claude Skills seems more proprietary. To what extent is Skills expected to be something that other clients, such as web based clients could adopt? To some extent it would probably make sense to expose through the MCP SDK?
I think the state fee for freetaxusa is something like $30 IIRC. It was small enough where I didn't even bother looking into whether it goes to the state or the software vendor. That's the cost of a casual lunch for one at 2025 prices.
I think it depends on the state. Virginia for instance used to have a free government run tax filing system, but the tax prep industry got a rep elected who killed it off and punished the state for its insolence with one of the highest e-file rates in the country.
My biggest hesitation about this is being stuck in merge hell. Even a minute or two needing to deal with that could negate the benefits of agents working in parallel. And I've tried some relatively simple rebase type operations with coding agents where they completely messed up. But if people are finding this is never an issue even with big diffs, I might be convinced to try it.
Typically people use sub agents from what I've seen to work in different parts of large code bases at a time.
If your hitting merge conflicts that bad all the time you should probably just have a single agent doing the work. Especially if they're intertwined rightly
reply