161–170 of 217 posts
Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
I think this can be said in many contexts these days.
Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
They did a whole PR cycle about how dangerous their technology was. They refused to release it for public consumption. How is this “targeting”? It’s literally what was requested.
They were asking for regulation. They were not asking to be singled out and prevented from releasing newer models while everybody else keeps going as usual. Based on the reasoning for blocking Fable, every current model should be blocked. GPT 5.5 is similarly strong and has fewer guardrails, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were asking for regulation. That's what they said, but were they, really? I've heard others call it a marketing ploy that AI companies keep coming back to-- the idea that "it's soooo dangerous, we have to be careful".
I can't see into their heads, and I also don't think it matters whether they were making a good-faith argument or lying through their teeth. The fact remains that what is currently happening is not what Anthropic asked for.
Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Institutions are not built around zero trust. Because when we assume attackers are identifiable, and there is some level of integrity, that makes things a lot simpler and cheaper. I will not expect my pediatrician to want to kill my child and they certainly could, but it would be completely bonkers to try to guard against that. Th…
Actually, the traditional guardrails we've always had are plenty. If a doctor starts trying to kill patients they are removed from society (they go to jail for a long time). Traditionally this was applied to people in power with the power of a good old fashioned lynch mob. If you obtain great power and use it to start hurting large numbers of people, the citizenry at large would drag that person out into the street a…
Actually, civil societies granted a monopoly on violence to the government which vests that in police and military. It’s a far better system than random justice because it’s predictable and you know upfront what’ll trigger it.
That system had its flaws, but despite that it was working pretty well until those flaws were found and exploited allowing it to be captured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember arbitrary application of law expands and affects everyone. You will be affected. The advantage of the rule of law is the equal application to everyone.
Isnt the situation sui generis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Institutions are not built around zero trust. Because when we assume attackers are identifiable, and there is some level of integrity, that makes things a lot simpler and cheaper. I will not expect my pediatrician to want to kill my child and they certainly could, but it would be completely bonkers to try to guard against that. Th…
Actually, the traditional guardrails we've always had are plenty. If a doctor starts trying to kill patients they are removed from society (they go to jail for a long time). Traditionally this was applied to people in power with the power of a good old fashioned lynch mob. If you obtain great power and use it to start hurting large numbers of people, the citizenry at large would drag that person out into the street a…
Unfortunately we don't seem to have the ability to do the same for corporations. If a person starts killing or robbing people, they get arrested and are removed from society. If a corporation starts killing or robbing people, they maybe get a strongly worded letter, maybe have their CEO say a few words in front of Congress, and maybe get a token fine amounting to 0.001% of their revenue (which they will appeal for ten years). But for whatever reason, we don't seem to have the guts to remove a badly behaving corporation from society--no matter what heinous things they are doing, no matter what laws they are breaking.