SnoopSqueak

empirical data was also used to determine that Africans and women didn’t have consciousness and were just mindless beasts.

No, it wasn’t. Empirical data was fabricated. There was never evidence to support those claims, which is why we no longer believe them.

instead of basing decisions on your diet entirely from an emotional reaction

I’m not, I’m basing decisions on evidence. Fuck you for projecting your idiocy onto me.

perhaps it’s best to determine your diet based on hard facts of nutritional value and environmental impact.

Which includes eating meat instead of plants. But I personally do it because we know animals feel fear and pain, and we do not know that about plants.

Why are you fighting in favor of needless slaughter? Fucking psychopaths here.

I just wanted to play damn game. On my damn computer. But no, I got a bug to deal with and first spotted comment is from some unhinged dev.

We don’t see enough in the screenshot to feel your outrage. If you mentioned wanting to play a game, it seems reasonable for them to ask for clarification whether your computer is completely unusable or has some functionality.

I don’t think they were trying to correct you, I think they were trying to help you troubleshoot by getting more details about the issue. I could be wrong.

How do you think I feel and how willing I to provide any help with debugging?

I understand the disappointment and frustration. Unfortunately, no one can diagnose your problems from a distance without your cooperation.

I hope you are able to resolve the problem and enjoy your game. I’ve lost my shit for less, and it can be easy to lash out, even at people who are genuinely trying to help us.

Yes, Anthropic presumably submitted a request to block search results that lead to Claude chats, as well as to remove the ones that were already there. Google’s removal tool can remove results that had been indexed, and the “noindex” meta tag prevents future indexing, if I’m understanding correctly.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9689846?hl=en

does google still has the URLs that it has already scraped?

My guess would be yes. I doubt the removal tool actually deletes content, more likely it just deactivates it. It could theoretically be reactived or used for something else, possibly even inbreeding (AI chat logs to train AI on) or selling data to whoever pays for it. But that is just a guess, I could be wrong. I don’t have much optimism when it comes to corporations, they tend to be as evil as they can get away with. If they legally acquired the content from those links because Anthropic neglected to protect them, there may not be many limits to what Google can do with those chat logs.

Claude fucked up, and gave Google a way to index public links of people.

Anthropic fucked up, Claude is not a person.

After this news broke, they asked Google (and other search engines) to not show those urls anymore.

Correct, that seems to be the case.

People fucked up and/or fell victim to Google’s the data hunger, which let Google to index their public links

Kind of. The user fuck up would be not realizing that Anthropic had no protections from search engines, and that by clicking “share” they were creating publicly accessible links.

after which Claude asked Google not to index such links.

Anthropic seems to have updated the domain those links are generated on so that crawlers do not index public chats, yes.

I guess, in the end, I’m mostly wondering if the long random strings of public links are generally “brute-force-discovered” by crawlers like Google, or whether “discovery” of such links requires some kind of breach.

I am also curious. I looked it up. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/how-search-works

The first stage is finding out what pages exist on the web. There isn’t a central registry of all web pages, so Google must constantly look for new and updated pages and add them to its list of known pages. This process is called “URL discovery”. Some pages are known because Google has already visited them. Other pages are discovered when Google extracts a link from a known page to a new page: for example, a hub page, such as a category page, links to a new blog post.

If I had to guess based on this, Google had probably indexed the domain Claude or its frontend run on and automatically scooped up the public chats as they became available.

It is also possible that any Claude chat shared will still be accessible to web crawlers, if they just ignore the flags telling them not to scrape, crawl, access, index, etc.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

they’re allowing that it still could be proven

Plants have no brains with which to think. We don’t accept claims without sufficient evidence. Please stop distorting reality. That is a deadly habit.

This doesn’t prove your claim, which you have failed to substantiate at all.

As I said, it’s the same cancerous, selfish inability to acknowledge what is most likely true that theists exhibit.

Do you believe a purple unicorn lives on the moon? I don’t. We have never observed a unicorn of any color, on earth or on the moon. Similarly, we have never observed plant consciousness, despite many attempts. Does that prove there is not a purple unicorn on the moon? No. But if you tell me there is without evidence, without knowing yourself, you’re lying to me. Lies cost lives.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Holy shit, did you skip basic biology?

Kingdom phylum class species, do these words mean anything to you?

Jellyfish and starfish are animals, not plants. Not all things without brains are plants, but there are no plants with brains that we know of.

Jellyfish seemingly cannot feel pain and only have enough neurons to crudely sense their environment; I advocate against consuming any animals, but in terms of animal suffering it is probably less harmful to eat a jellyfish than a cow, chicken, pig, or even fish, which can feel pain.

My ethics include using scientifically acquired information to make the best choices we can. The fuck are you doing?

You’re ignoring evidence as well as my other point: cutting meat from your diet results in fewer plants consumed.

No ethical stance starts with measuring anything in value as ‘less than’ another so long as it is used just to justify to find their own comfort to judge others from.

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m going from the ground up. Based on all available evidence, plants do not feel fear or pain. Again, they have no brains. This information guides my choices, following my goal to reduce suffering in the world.

You’re the one thinking backwards. I never said they were “less than,” only that they lack consciousness. You’re pretending we should feel guilty for eating things that cannot think.

If you feel that strongly about it, stop consuming anything.

Removed by mod

Did these people publish the urls somewhere publically themselves?

They created a public link. Google scraped it because it wasn’t told not to.

From the article:

A spokesman for Google made clear to the BBC that the company does not control “what pages are made public on the web,” saying instead that action comes from websites.

“We give site owners clear controls to decide whether pages can be crawled or indexed, and we always respect those directives.”

As the search indexing of the chat logs is no longer occurring, it is likely Anthropic used available tools to quickly block the chat log links from search results. Google’s process for a website owner to block a link is straightforward, but must be initiated by a website owner.

Google was not the only one:

Other search engines like Bing, Brave and Duck Duck Go, through which the Claude chat logs also appeared, were approached for comment.

it does not prove plants aren’t conscious

Because a negative can’t be proven.

it casts doubt on the existing claims that they are.

Because evidence does not support those claims.

Theists use this same fallacious logic to pretend it’s acceptable to worship bronze age death gods.

Let’s all use our brains, please.

in the conclusion, they explicitly allow for the possibility that it may be proven that plants are conscious.

Do they? Please provide a quote, I’m not seeing anything like that in the conclusion.

Here’s the other thing: even if you are correct (which is not likely based on evidence), consuming plants instead of meat still reduces suffering. Eating plants directly is more efficient than eating animals that eat plants.

Removed by mod