11–20 of 382 posts
This administration will do or say something crazy to a private company, then this private company sends an envoy to the White House to negotiate, then the White House asks for 10% of the company or other concessions.
The White House wants 10% of Anthropic.
This is just a negotiation tactic that Trump keeps on using.
Don't people get it by now? This administration will do or say something crazy to a private company, then this private company sends an envoy to the White House to negotiate, then the White House asks for 10% of the company or other concessions. The White House wants 10% of Anthropic. This is just a negotiation tactic that Trump keeps on using.
They did it to Intel a little while back: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
https://www.lutasecurity.com/post/the-fable-5-export-control...
Don't people get it by now? This administration will do or say something crazy to a private company, then this private company sends an envoy to the White House to negotiate, then the White House asks for 10% of the company or other concessions. The White House wants 10% of Anthropic. This is just a negotiation tactic that Trump keeps on using.
Precisely this, and timed to their upcoming IPO. They did it to Intel a little while back: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
Well this makes it sound the feds were less worried about someone using Fable 5 to attack them , but were worried about someone using Fable 5 to prevent the Feds from attacking others ... As in worried about other countries/organizations using Fable 5 to actually do decent cyber security.
The AI can't actually tell if you are trying to patch your own system or exploit others.
Feels like the title isn't really giving the full context of what they ended up actually seeing, despite what the lede implies multiple times.
Still, ban seems stupid... Still no actual leak of the full "third-party research paper"?
I'm not sure I've understood it correctly. So, basically the model didn't agree to expose possible vulnerabilities but agree to patch those? Regardless of the request to take Fable 5 down. Why is requesting the model to show vulnerabilities is being blocked if fixing it not? is it based on the assumption of the intention? I don't quite get the benefit of limiting it. So if anyone can explain it better it'll be apprec…