Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
Free for me, not for thee
U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
231–240 of 873 posts
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want. In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic…
> A/B test we had on society over the 20th century.
Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement. Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong. (FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, governm…
I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way. The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
> I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.
Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.
Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#234Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.
Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented. Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips ac…
Stop with the false equivalence.
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable. This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market" Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other s…
at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market" I mean, it's not. In a free market you'd have a choice of insurance providers rather than having to take whatever plan your employer offers, and you'd have some idea of what the hospital is going to charge you beforehand rather than receiving random bills for weeks.
Just to be clear, my definition of free-market is just that there is no centralised authority that can use force to set prices/quantities/quality/type of services offered.
Of course, the fact that the employer has to offer health insurance in some cases is part of it not being a free market.
But there are more fundamental things that make the US healthcare very far from being a free market. The first one is that the supply of doctors is capped in quantity, not just in quality.
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want. In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic…
> A/B test we had on society over the 20th century. Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.
Not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate?
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#238Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line.
Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.) EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
> I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.
If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime. The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
But it was applied using principles of the rule of law with clear regulatory frameworks. This is not that
I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.
If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.
Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2778) in the Ford administration and it has been applied to software since at least the Clinton administration.
isn't this materially different in that it creates a kind of class system within the US?
how so? Is it a class system that only Raytheon employees can work on cruise missiles, not the average citizen?
(edit: not that these models are equivalent to missiles oc)