So they either:
- still pass 'some' info to the advertiser/advertising platform (convo topic, eg here trip, santa fe) which would be bad.
- select the best ad that's been submitted to them based on your chat (in that case OAI keeps the info they already have anyway).
this seems important to know
![jonny (nonvenomous) @jonny@neuromatch.social
OH what's this???
/etc/hatch/env
hmm a feature flag labeled as a "killswitch" for proxying requests to anthropic is certainly interesting to seeeeeeeeeeeee in meta's big AI bet.
edit: sorry to be a bit cryptic here, the implication was definitely corporate espionage, more clearly said: https://
retro.social/@patrick/117330254290603490
[screenshot of several lines of comments for an environment variable]
-----
ticho @ticho@mas.to
@jonny The way the comment is worded I don't think enabling this would relay anything anywhere - note the "Meta-internal proxy". It's probably only intended to be used inside their network, probably meant as an override for internal development.
------
@patrick@retro.social
@ticho @jonny The idea about such "internal proxies" is to get whatever would be sent to Anthropic plus - more importantly for Meta - what gets sent back in a log, so that they can train their own systems on the way Anthropic responds to users.
It's a common complaint about Chinese models that they were supposedly built like that, using examples of the Good American Models to "clone" the work. Besides the general "we may copy everything with impunity but how dare they copy our output" hypocrisy of the argument, it's interesting to see this in one of Meta's systems, too.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ruuthvgz75h7mdcjgqrc5g3j/bafkreigybljfka5inisoaeo4nz4jgrgfwdx4sg75vdf3tpngo7vs6e6bh4)
![Extrait d'une conversation avec Sonnet 4.6:
User: since you've been hallucinating a lot on this topic, please give me doc references about:
* where does. the desktop client look for integration urls
* where does it get that info if missing
basically i want to 1/ validate that indeed a .well-known/matrix/client would solve it and 2/ that it needs to be served from the user-id domain and not the homeserver domain
Sonnet: Fair point. I've been reasoning from memory on this and getting details wrong. Let me find the actual docs.
[Synthesized spec documentation to validate integration manager discovery approach>]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ruuthvgz75h7mdcjgqrc5g3j/bafkreicjwzrjfk6dxqxxbv2egim3enwgnch3zrwvr7vh2hfru7xdsjwkvi)
![[...]It appears he invented the entire study. In the aftermath, MIT economics professors have been discussing ways to raise standards for graduate students' research papers, including scrutinizing raw data, and students are going out of their way to show their work isn't counterfeit, according to people at the school. Since parting with the university, Toner-Rodgers has told other students that his paper's problems were essentially a mere issue
with data rights. According to him, he had indeed burrowed into a trove of data from a large materials-science company, as his paper said he did. But instead of getting formal permission to use the data, he faked a data-use agreement after the company wanted to pull out, he told other students via a WhatsApp message in May... On Jan. 31, Corning filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against the registrar of the domain name corningresearch.com. Someone who controlled that domain name could potentially create email addresses or webpages that gave the impression they were affiliated with the company. WIPO soon found that Toner-Rodgers had apparently registered the domain name, according to the organization's written decision on the case. Toner-Rodgers never responded to the complaint, and Corning successfully won the transfer of the domain name. WIPO declined to comment... In the WhatsApp chat in May, in which Toner-Rodgers told other students he had faked the data-use agreement, he wrote, "This was a huge and embarrassing act of dishonesty on my part, and in hindsight it clearly would've been better to just abandon the paper." Both Corning and 3M told the Journal that they didn't roll out the experiment Toner-Rodgers described, and that they didn't share data with him.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ruuthvgz75h7mdcjgqrc5g3j/bafkreicupybijjd4a47gboooplhtfqvvc6lyjjlgjlgq5l53xkb7z75tni)