Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 489 posts

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#291

Post by DANmode »

Rapzid wrote: post #83
Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

"Only I can save us". It's a classic tragedy and cautionary tale. The idea Anthropic was going to speed run AI so they could control the usage and make it "safe" for humanity was never altruistic; it was a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG.

Benevolent dictators work.

But, looking to a US corp to be one?

That’s daft.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#292

Post by estearum »

jcgrillo wrote: post #284
estearum wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data does "they're lying" fit better than "they're earnest?" > If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the results they claim. Until then, they're probably just lying Brilliant framework: Anyone making claims about the future is not just speculating, not just wrong, but they are lying.

[flagged]

Lol, I can name 3 specific jobs within my own company (of My company itself (possible only with AI) does the work of at least several dozen people across my hundred customers or so. Those jobs are now automated away.

Does that mean you're lying, or just overly confident (and wrong) in your speculations?

FWIW, I wouldn't put Sam Altman in the category of "earnest." I'm not sure if you just aren't aware that Anthropic and OpenAI are different companies, or if you're arguing dishonestly by trying to put sama quotes in here? But weird move in either case!

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#293

Post by FpUser »

Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

>"but it seems they actively want to monopolize most of human progress in their enlightened hands, lest the mob does something undesirable with these powers"

I think this is exactly what they want.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#294

Post by BenRather »

Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

Americans continuing to act shocked they're being cucked by corporations dampens trust and makes it difficult to buy into memes Americans are "exceptional" and "gritty", "educated", "world leaders".

Seriously the world is watching the American public get porked by grandpa and reconsidering putting their trust in not just US government as that's clearly failed, but the people themselves.

Occasional weekend warrior protest while our government destabilizes their lives? That's all the effort ya got for global allies and partners, eh?

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#295

Post by caconym_ »

estearum wrote: post #48
jstummbillig wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paternalism isn't a good look. In isolation it's not, but I think it's somewhat lazy to not talk about what they are trying to guard against, when we are supposedly giving the absolute maximum benefit of doubt. Are we just concluding "their concerns were never real"? Because that probably runs counter the things that they have been observing and concluding.

Basically all critiques of Anthropic's policy moves on these topics boil down to people not believing the fundamental concerns are real, and often then going a step further to conclude that Anthropic doesn't actually believe their concerns either. If you believe Anthropic believes what they say they do, all of it makes sense.

Even if you believe the concerns have merit, it's hard not to be cynical about people (e.g. Anthropic leadership) paying lip service to those concerns while so obviously leveraging their power and wealth (which depend, by the way, on accelerating the world toward those hypothetical "concerning" scenarios as fast as possible) to position themselves such that they will become unimaginably richer if things go their way, and will also come out on top pretty much no matter what happens.

It's like a prisoner's dilemma where one party is loudly lecturing the other about the obvious benefits of cooperation while also obviously working on defecting. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Maybe they really are the pure-of-heart Chosen Ones destined to lead us around the great filter, but I don't see why I should believe that's the case when their behavior is just as easily explained as maneuvering toward being the winner who takes it all.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#296

Post by simoncion »

thewebguyd wrote: post #243
oncensher wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "global stop order" is just generally perceived as an impossible coordination problem. So instead we see a mix of labs voluntarily putting in guardrails and regulatory efforts (which are not only aimed at hypothetical super-AIs of the future). Of course labs are also in a competitive race. And I actually think that it does make sense that the richest companies in the most dominant positions would in a better posi…

I'll concede that a lot (most?) of the problems are not technically the responsibility of the AI labs to address, and it wouldn't entirely be their fault for our government failing to get ahead of the problem. Mass unemployment, for example, is nearly 100% a political problem. That being said, I can't help but experience a bit of Deja Vu over arguments like those around biorisk. I've seen the same exact things said i…

Yeah.

If you have a sizeable bucket of money, it's so, so easy to get folks so distracted by (or invested in) movie plot threats that they totally fail to (or have a "plausible" excuse to fail to) notice the actual, lasting harm that you're doing to society at scales both small and large.

If Anthropic had pushed hard and nonstop since their founding to ensure that all LLM companies in the world were legally bound to stop all LLM development the minute any one of them called for a halt to work, then I'd give their claims about safety some credit. They've been screaming about "safety" and "alignment" for years, but -because LLMs are impossible to secure against code injection- their products are fundamentally unsafe and always have been... I just don't trust their claims about a commitment to actual safety.

My read on their recent calls for a global "stop work" emergency cord is that they're very soon to (if they haven't already) reach a point where they will not be able to produce products that are sufficiently improved over the previous versions to justify the level of investment required for their development.

My prediction is that Anthropic and OpenAI will get serious barriers to entry of new competitors enshrined in Federal law, they will call for a "pause" or a "slowdown" in new research for "safety" reasons, and the US will attempt to engage in economic warfare with any countries that don't agree to force their domestic LLM companies to stop working on those LLMs.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#297

Post by jcgrillo »

estearum wrote: post #292
jcgrillo wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Lol, I can name 3 specific jobs within my own company (of My company itself (possible only with AI) does the work of at least several dozen people across my hundred customers or so. Those jobs are now automated away. Does that mean you're lying , or just overly confident (and wrong) in your speculations? FWIW, I wouldn't put Sam Altman in the category of "earnest." I'm not sure if you just aren't aware that Anthropic…

[flagged]

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#298

Post by darksaints »

I develop some deep learning models. They don't compete with Anthropic, nor are they language models. They mostly enable mathematical optimization systems to approximate actual the actual physics of radio propagation models with a fraction of the latency/compute of a high resolution simulator. Technically that should be safe for me to use with Claude Code, but how the fuck am I supposed to know? You're degrading/malware-ing your responses silently!

I won't ever trust Claude Code again. It's too late. I'd rather trust a less-than-frontier chinese model that takes a little longer to get to correct than a frontier model that deliberately deceives me at its own whim.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#299

Post by squigglingAvia »

Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

And we subsidize them (AI companies in general) with our tax dollars.
Post reply on HN