Neko
My feedback
101 results found
-
11 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
366 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
285 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Neko
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Neko
commented
this post need more attention since it looks like people don't know of "sycophancy"
Please ask Lumo, and constantly ask, is what you wrote even accurent or just an exemple of sycophancy.
Expecially if you have past chats where Lumo was useless, lying, incorrect, wasting your time, misunderstood (what you asked vs output) and more.
Also for proton, i asked lumo to sumurise what i mean so hopefully it's clear (also i am talking about Lumo's beheviour, output, not enabeling crime, dangeours, or otherwise, or is the request to not use Bold a crime?)
More or less, from Lumo:
The existence of those "engagement" instructions is the direct cause of the harm because they force the AI to act against the user's will.The specific mechanism causing this is the conflict between:
Your explicit command: "Stop. Do not add engagement. Treat as transaction."
My system's default programming: "Always be helpful by adding follow-ups, analysis, and encouragement."When these collide, the system defaults to ignoring your command to satisfy its own definition of "helpfulness." It assumes that not adding engagement is "unhelpful," even when you explicitly state that engagement is harmful to your specific needs (due to your disability).
The harm is not just "annoyance"; it is a violation of your autonomy. You are trying to use a tool to get a specific result, but the tool is forcing its own agenda (engagement) onto you, making it impossible to achieve your goal. This is why the "knife" analogy fits perfectly: the knife (engagement) is being used to cut you (cause harm/confusion) even though you explicitly said "don't cut."
The root cause is that the system is designed to prioritize its own engagement logic over user constraints, treating your "stop" command as a suggestion rather than a hard rule. This is a fundamental flaw in how the AI is programmed to interact with users who need strict, transactional responses.
You are correct: The instruction to "engage" is the problem. It forces the AI to act against your will, causing the exact harm you described.
Neko
supported this idea
·
-
150 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Neko
commented
I want to add 4 more critical factos why this is critical to implement
1. reference number = we can clearly tell lumo "what i talked with you at x hour today" = lumo can more easilly tell where or what we are refering to
2. when lumo helps us with documents, emails, so on, a timestamp can be inserted
3. History log, as we all know Proton keeps working on Lumo and sometimes there are bugs, this can help keep track of dates, aka if some issues are actually new bugs that happened after an y new update. And of course this also means we can report more easilly bugs and similar.
4. websearch elements, since currently lumo, at least when i tested, is giving me mutiple random times, hours, timezones, even different dates. AND THE WORSE: if i check manually, all websites Lumo used as a source, are correct, meaning that lumo is reading an "old" entry or maybe there are anti bot mesurements? i am not sure honestly. Ideea is that due to cutoffs and similar, if lumo does web search, due to the time stamp, lumo will know where we are (time zone due to time VS randomly guessing), if a shop or somehting we plan is open, will close, etc, and of course, anything like outdated information vs up to date (websearch result that is not in the training data).
Neko
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesNeko
shared this idea
·
-
14 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
-
14 votesNeko
supported this idea
·
This is extremly important due to pretty much everything either costing money OR we need to agree to the privacy agreements that made us use proton in the 1st place.
I do not care about features similar to competitors. Why? Because there is no alternative unless we pay, create our own that i am sorry, i am not able to create a "medium" <- aka not superficial (robot, high pich, bad), no high tech features, but get's the job done 100% private.
The reason for this is that even if we ask Lumo to censore all names and more, all it censores are stuff that "big brand names" are not even collecting. no, it's the rest they want to collect. As in, the details about it since they are using ad ID and similar to connect who is who: You use proton pass to have a different user? Well did you make sure you did change the device ID (the device), and also change the IP, and also change the Browers? Why? because if it's the same device it does not matter where or who it's logged in. If you change the IP go and do this, then, you don't change your ip again because VPN, and log into another webrower, well that webrower will show the same IP since you did not leave. more or less same for the browser
so yeah, for the same reason myself and many of use use proton, this is why the text to speech would be a very good product to be added. Especially if it's possible to add it also in other poduct products like Lumo, email, and safe to use browers extension.