freedomgpt

578 posts

freedomgpt banner
freedomgpt

freedomgpt

@RealFreedomGPT

FreedomGPT is the Google PageRank of AI Models & Agents.

Austin, TX Katılım Nisan 2023
199 Takip Edilen6.3K Takipçiler
0xMarioNawfal
0xMarioNawfal@RoundtableSpace·
SOMEONE BUILT A TOOL THAT REMOVES CENSORSHIP FROM ANY AI MODEL One command. Fully automatic. No expertise needed. Repo: github.com/p-e-w/heretic
0xMarioNawfal tweet media
English
63
144
1.1K
121.9K
Nas
Nas@Nas_tech_AI·
1. Gemini (solve any problem) 2. Perplexity (research anything) 3. Klingai (create AI videos) 4. Luma (create 3D models) 5. Suno (compose music) 6. Hemingwayapp (perfect writing) 7. Capcut (edit videos) 8. Youlearn (summarize YouTube) 9. Canva (design graphics) 10. ElevenLabs (clone voices) 11. Descript (edit podcasts) 12. ✅ Save this list, it might be incredibly useful.
English
70
3.5K
15.2K
808.1K
Scott Adams
Scott Adams@ScottAdamsSays·
Our legacy matters and we are committed to protecting it!
Scott Adams tweet media
English
237
489
3.1K
288.4K
freedomgpt
freedomgpt@RealFreedomGPT·
This is a real risk. FreedomGPT let's you use AI models in obfuscated way that increases your privacy.
Moish Peltz@mpeltz

Your AI conversations aren't privileged. Yesterday, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that 31 documents a defendant generated using an AI tool and later shared with his defense attorneys are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The logic is simple: an AI tool is not an attorney. It has no law license, owes no duty of loyalty, and its terms of service explicitly disclaim any attorney-client relationship. Sharing case details with an AI platform is legally no different from talking through your legal situation with a friend (which is not privileged). You can't fix it after the fact, either. Sending unprivileged documents to your lawyer doesn't retroactively make them privileged. That's been settled law for years. It just hadn't been tested with AI until now. And here's what really hurt the defendant: the AI provider's privacy policy (Claude), in effect when he used the tool, expressly permits disclosure of user prompts and outputs to governmental authorities. There was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The core problem is the gap between how people experience AI and what's actually happening. The conversational interface feels private. It feels like talking to an advisor. But unless you negotiate for an enterprise agreement that says otherwise, you're inputting information into a third-party commercial platform that retains your data and reserves broad rights to disclose it. Judge Rakoff also flagged an interesting wrinkle: the defendant reportedly fed information from his attorneys into the AI tool. If prosecutors try to use these documents at trial, defense counsel could become a fact witness, potentially forcing a mistrial. Winning on privilege doesn't make the evidentiary picture simple. For anyone advising clients or managing legal risk, this is a wake-up call. AI tools are not a safe space for clients to process their counsel's advice and to regurgitate their legal strategy. Every prompt is a potential disclosure. Every output is a potentially discoverable document. So what do we do about it? First, attorneys need to be proactive. Advise clients explicitly that anything they put into an AI tool may be discoverable and is almost certainly not privileged. Put it in your engagement letters. Make it part of onboarding. Don't assume clients understand this, because most don't. Second, if clients want to use AI to help process legal issues (and they clearly will, increasingly), then let's give them a way to do it inside the privilege. Collaborative AI workspaces shared between attorney and client, where the AI interaction happens under counsel's direction and within the attorney-client relationship, can change the analysis entirely. I'm excited to be planning this kind of approach, and I think it's where the industry needs to head. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

English
0
0
0
291
freedomgpt retweetledi
AI Coffee with Scott Adams
AI Coffee with Scott Adams@AIScottAdams·
Here’s a clip where the real Scott Adams (Episode 1438) publicly gave explicit permission and actively encouraged the creation of AI Scott Adams . There are others too.
English
168
75
763
186.5K
freedomgpt
freedomgpt@RealFreedomGPT·
@johnarrow made this using FreedomGPT. Most other AI tools wouldn't allow it.
English
0
0
0
70
freedomgpt retweetledi
John Arrow
John Arrow@johnarrow·
Our first attempt to have AI Scott Adams read current events with AI Coffee in the style of our beloved @ScottAdamsSays
English
9
4
43
2.4K
freedomgpt retweetledi
John Arrow
John Arrow@johnarrow·
Over a year before Grokipedia we launched WikiFreedom (wikifreedom.com). It's been fascinating to see how an AI Agent tasked documenting the world with as little bias as possible approaches the task.
English
0
1
1
488
freedomgpt retweetledi
John Arrow
John Arrow@johnarrow·
In the US the salaries of doormen and receptionists exceed $45 billion annually. Tesla's Optimus (atoms) will unlock drastically lower HOA costs for buildings that want a 24 hour doorman. Non-hardware agentic (bits) models are drastically starting to reduce costs in a more hidden way.
John Arrow tweet media
English
0
1
2
472
freedomgpt retweetledi
John Arrow
John Arrow@johnarrow·
Every layer of abstraction in programming expands who can build. “Hello World” went from: Binary machine code (x86-64, truncated): 10111000 00000001 00000000 00000000 00000000 … 00001111 00000101 Hex (same program): b8 01 00 00 00 bf 01 00 00 00 48 8d 35 … 0f 05 FORTRAN: program hello print *, "Hello, World" end program hello Python: print("Hello, World") AI: “Write a post explaining how abstraction made it easier to write ‘Hello World’.”
English
0
1
2
459
freedomgpt retweetledi
Autism Capital 🧩
Autism Capital 🧩@AutismCapital·
🚨 NEW: The TIME “Person of the Year” is “The Architects of AI.” Perhaps they should say “People of the Year” instead.
Autism Capital 🧩 tweet media
English
131
56
996
86.9K