"But Google got caught precisely because of their own file‑restore robot, and this is my technical checkmate against them:"
Claudish (but not all of the text seems to be). Idk, I read this all day and am getting allergic to it. It's always the load-bearing decision worth my thought, and then some contradiction. It's not just this, it's THIS and THIS.
I've been using some GLM5.2 via Mistral lately and it doesn't have this... tone... But it makes some mistakes sometimes that Claude wouldn't.
Idk, just the idea that this was artificial expanded, makes me feel anyone could have written it, I could ask Claude for it directly. There will be no insight, even though there may be. What is happening to me, I am not anti AI.
I read this all day and am getting allergic to it. It's always the load-bearing decision worth my thought, and then some contradiction. It's not just this, it's THIS and THIS.
I kinda the mockery it makes of the "look how smart I am" internet comment types since it's basically their sort of linguistic drivel but cranked to 11.
Google’s own developer (Lalit_Kumar, 2025) wrote that the chat is actually not the JSON file in Drive, but only metadata. Due to the loss of the metadata, AI Studio “does not recognize” the chat — but this is not a deletion.
This is like deleting a shortcut and saying the file is gone, right?
If I go to court, I win. There is no other outcome.
Har har har. Spoken like somebody who's never been in a courtroom or read about a court case before. You still have to tick all the technicality boxes before you can win, starting with proving that the law actually says Google has to delete this. You also have to follow all the implicit rules of court procedure, which are the main reason you always need a lawyer.
Op doesn't realize there are so many legal terms that will make what he thinks is criminal not criminal and give them so many ways out of it these same people literally write the law good luck sir
To me the blog post feels as though AI has had significant input in the writing. Whether it's entirely AI written or AI ideated with some human input on the writing I don't know. So it's not really a surprise to see this sort of statement.
"But Google got caught precisely because of their own file‑restore robot, and this is my technical checkmate against them:"
Claudish (but not all of the text seems to be). Idk, I read this all day and am getting allergic to it. It's always the load-bearing decision worth my thought, and then some contradiction. It's not just this, it's THIS and THIS.
I've been using some GLM5.2 via Mistral lately and it doesn't have this... tone... But it makes some mistakes sometimes that Claude wouldn't.
Idk, just the idea that this was artificial expanded, makes me feel anyone could have written it, I could ask Claude for it directly. There will be no insight, even though there may be. What is happening to me, I am not anti AI.
I kinda the mockery it makes of the "look how smart I am" internet comment types since it's basically their sort of linguistic drivel but cranked to 11.
This is like deleting a shortcut and saying the file is gone, right?
That's not how I read the linked thread. The linked thread sounds like the JSON file also has metadata attached to it.
Since it's a JSON file, I wonder what's actually inside, and why the blog post doesn't mention opening it with a text editor.
Har har har. Spoken like somebody who's never been in a courtroom or read about a court case before. You still have to tick all the technicality boxes before you can win, starting with proving that the law actually says Google has to delete this. You also have to follow all the implicit rules of court procedure, which are the main reason you always need a lawyer.
Op doesn't realize there are so many legal terms that will make what he thinks is criminal not criminal and give them so many ways out of it these same people literally write the law good luck sir
To me the blog post feels as though AI has had significant input in the writing. Whether it's entirely AI written or AI ideated with some human input on the writing I don't know. So it's not really a surprise to see this sort of statement.
As some commenter in another thread pointed out OP is on a crusade, posting variations on this theme (and getting flagged) all the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Bitu79
It’s odd that someone would assert that a legal action would be successful while citing no legal precedent.
All of the facts presented could be true, but what law is broken? What harm creates the basis for a civil suit?
Imagine using Google