181–190 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt the situation sui generis?
No, it is not. This is the entire thing about the rule of law. People constantly think their pet thing is sui generis. But actually the even handed application of the rule of law is a general good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the good old “stop resisting” falacy
If you re-read my comment, I am not saying that. It seems to be observably true that expressing opinions critical of the administration, even about one's own business, leads to further harm from government right now in the U.S. in a country which is supposed to have strong freedom of speech rights. It's obviously unfortunate that this is the case. It's also a shame that this is happening when the folks regulating AI…
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".
> That's what they said, but were they, really? Yes, most likely, but not in this form, obviously. They want open weight models regulated for regulatory capture, and I'd assume they want an actually documented framework applied equally across all labs. If GPT5.5 has the same capabilities Fable did, then for consistency sake, it should have also been subject to this ban. Regulate or not regulate, but the government sh…
> Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation is a published rule applied equally to all the industry. Not one applied to a target for retribution or to extract submission
Applying equally to all the industry is a characteristic of good regulation, not of regulation tout court .
There is also a case that it violates due process because anthropic wasn’t provided adequate notice before enforcement or an opportunity to challenge, respond, or take steps to comply.
There is latitude for compelling state interests and national security is one with the widest latitude and potentially one that counts can’t review. But the court of public opinion may draw the inference that this is direct retaliation for refusing to make the models available for autonomous weapons and spying.
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.
No, it is not. This is the entire thing about the rule of law. People constantly think their pet thing is sui generis. But actually the even handed application of the rule of law is a general good.
Argue with Anthropic, Amazon, and the NSA. They all say it is.
I’ll make them argue that when you get Sam Altman to admit he lost the lead to anthropic
Anthropic sowing: Hehe yeah guys check out this model it's super duper scary and powerful it's a huge deal Anthropic reaping: Hey wait a second you weren't supposed to take that seriously it was just marketing :(
Was it not just a few weeks ago the government was telling Anthropic to take the guardrails off of the "super duper scary" models? Now they want them back on? AI for me and not for thee? Or just another opportunity for a petulant administration to target Anthropic for not doing what they wanted the first time?
100%, I mean we already have Mythos vs Fable
Anthropic sowing: Hehe yeah guys check out this model it's super duper scary and powerful it's a huge deal Anthropic reaping: Hey wait a second you weren't supposed to take that seriously it was just marketing :(
It can both be true that models at Fable capability level are national security concerns while Anthropic is being hypocritical. If the Trump admin is also willing to apply the same scrutiny to GPT-5.6 and other Fable-level models, I think it is a good thing. But given the admin's history with Anthropic (such as declaring it a supply chain risk while ignoring Chinese labs), there is some smell of targeting.
> We’re proposing stronger regulation of the technology. We’re proposing giving the government the ability to, again in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology. Anthropic CEO https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
Okay, so why are other models not banned too? This "jailbreak" works for them as well.
(whether Mythos is actually that dangerous is beside the point; considering that Anthropic claims that it is, it makes sense to regulate it)