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

U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 873 posts

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#861

Post by trimethylpurine »

defrost wrote: post #226
trimethylpurine wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Data first. What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines. Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries? I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.

I've landed inarguable points with azan but I'm sure they aren't a "peer" by any definition. Claiming to have a PhD online isn't difficult. But you'll note they went silent when asked to check CDC data.

What about Australia? Want to check that data? Does Australia have a freedom of information system where we can get their data and is it open for doctors to report or is the data cleaned first before it's published?

Let's download it and see what it really says. Plenty of free SQL servers available, and today even people that don't write code can get an LLM to help.

Jump in and be scientist! Are you willing or were you just here to pose like the media told you to?

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#862

Post by trimethylpurine »

jknoepfler wrote: post #853
defrost wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a much greater injury and death rate attributable to vaccines than COVID. Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition. Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had…

Checking back on this thread and wow. The absolutely rabid energy with which Republicans will fabricate information to evade personal moral responsibility for making the COVID death toll worse is incredible. We have a completely medically illiterate user citing (one) of an endless supply of studies as evidence that vaccines killed people. The study doesn't say that... which isn't surprising because the rest of the li…

You sound exactly like a preacher. No math, no science.

Seriously, read the thread. Look how hard it is to get people that claim to be on the side of science to do any science! Just do a little math.

Yet you'll tell scientists to their face they are wrong.

A bunch of people who maybe have a degree in marketing giving political opinion as medical advice.

>nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners

According to who? Where did you get this from? Aren't you embarrassed to admit that you got it from a media outlet and you've found no such meta study to cite?

According to the consensus, as it appears from the huge amount of research on the topic, COVID RNA treatments exhibit a much higher rate of negative outcomes than traditional vaccines and a higher rate than COVID infection, which mostly goes undetected and causes no symptoms. That's in line with CDC data, and it's according to the CDC statements about the vaccine as well.

The CDC / FDA never made any statements about this treatment being safer than getting COVID for a healthy child or adult as individuals. The purpose of recommending that the risk of treatment was necessary, is for the protection of those with weakened immune systems through herd immunity. For the public good, essentially.

Everything I've said here is backed by the FDA and CDC websites, and you can very easily confirm it. Please do so.

You WANT to be on the side of science, and I love that, but it looks to me like you are on the side of a media conglomerate instead. They've told you that they are the arbiter of science, and you believe them.

You're in a cult, in other words.

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#863

Post by trimethylpurine »

digitaltrees wrote: post #841
dmix wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been critical of crony capitalism consistently on HN for a decade now. Many people just haven’t been paying attention because nobody cares to follow this stuff unless there’s a useful political angle.

If I bring a house cat to a party and you bring a tiger we could both be accused of bringing a pet to the party without asking. But only one of the pets will crush your throat and then eat your face. I would love to see any examples of democrats being crony capitalist of the same degree as the current administration. They are selling pardons, hosting crypto dinners where the seating arrangement is based on how many c…

>I would love to see any examples of democrats being crony capitalist of the same degree

No you wouldn't. You've established a subjective measure to the discussion by which you can refuse to acknowledge any example provided.

How about Biden leaving a bunch of equipment in Afghanistan so his weapons manufacturing buddies could get new manufacturing contracts?

How about Biden using the EPA to shut down eco friendly products in favor of his buddies' company's spill remediation that doesn't work nearly as well?

Oh well, those individually aren't "to the same degree" even if there are many more of them that cumulatively add up to a greater degree.

There are countless examples of this, as lots of others have pointed out to you across this thread. You're just choosing to walk them all back into a corner of "but it's not as bad because ."

Your opinion as given is entirely based around Trump, not government.

It's simple fanaticism. You've chosen a football team. Nothing will convince you that their quarterback sucks because he was just having a bad day every game of the season.

You can quickly stop doing this. Go research the counterpoints and see if you aren't being selective. It will require some honesty with yourself to do so. Most people find that very difficult.

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#864

Post by snovv_crash »

defrost wrote: post #805
snovv_crash wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government obviously has no control over what China sends to Australia, so it this case the cat is out of the bag. However I can assure you the limit is still real for US companies: https://oem.flir.com/support/support-center/knowledge-base/a...

Cheers for the follow-up .. and that's certainly interesting. Chinese 50 fps thermal cameras and scopes have been about for a while now, they've been supplying the industrial specialist market even longer than the general consumer goods market. I note the US export control is limited by licence .. which likely means the US high frame rate thermal gear is equally as available in AU as (say) TI DSP chips were when they…

Now that China is also making them I wouldn't be surprised if they drop this. But FLIR has been doing milspec thermal cameras for over 20 years and I think the regulation certainly slowed down proliferation of this equipment in the early days.

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#865

Post by kulahan »

sschueller wrote: post #541
stanac wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Chinese have not tried to take European land by force What did US do? Are you referring to Kosovo? For context, I am European using both US and Chinese models, not rooting for one side or the other (but prefer openness of Chinese models).

Greenland, Svalbard, Falklands and Sazan Island in just the last two years.

Could you imagine if the US actually tried to take these by force, instead of in “meany weenie words” form?

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#866

Post by Planktonne »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #834
Planktonne wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all entirely science fiction though, until we see some actual evidence. If Mythos is so incredibly dangerous, then the models before should be at least a little dangerous, and we haven't seen that.

> That's all entirely science fiction though Current AI was science fiction 5 years ago. But, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ignorant it is

This comment betrays a lack of familiarity with either AI or science fiction. Current AI was SF in 1961[1], but what we've got now has been considered beneath the realm of SF for a long time now.

[1] https://mcraenglish.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/8/7/15876062/the_...

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#867

Post by Planktonne »

swishman wrote: post #838
Planktonne wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all entirely science fiction though, until we see some actual evidence. If Mythos is so incredibly dangerous, then the models before should be at least a little dangerous, and we haven't seen that.

Didn’t it find a bunch of 30 year old vulnerabilities already? What more proof do you need

"Finding a bunch of old vulnerabilities" is still several steps away from bringing a nation to its knees.

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#868

Post by preg_match »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #859
preg_match wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 27% is for adverse effects , which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is c…

> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today). Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that ma…

Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense.

You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts.

You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit.

You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing.

The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#869

Post by trimethylpurine »

preg_match wrote: post #868
trimethylpurine wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today). Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that ma…

Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense. You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects . The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts. You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagre…

The seemingly higher incidence for placebo when compared with MMR can be explained.

1. First, the placebo data comes from an article that doesn't meet several academic standards for peer reviewed research.

The researchers were the reviewers and they all work at Pfizer. So, peer review was not done at all.

AND the results were not published for us to see. So we have to take their word for it that they performed any research whatsoever.

So, you're comparing peer reviewed research on MMR and 30 years of CDC data on MMR, to the unrelated placebo rate reported in a paper on mRNA vaccination that wasn't even peer reviewed.

Can we agree that peer reviewed research is a more preferrable source for information?

2. We're comparing apples to oranges. MMR is around 10% rate for mild reactions. Around one third of the 27% reported for Pfizer's mRNA COVID vaccine. And that's still lower than the reported placebo rate. We need to be careful which symptoms count as reactions to placebo since that differs between studies.

So, COVID vaccine is 3x more likely to cause an adverse reaction when we generally include all mild reactions like fever, even where mild fever is a desirable outcome for MMR but not for COVID vaccine.

We'd need to look at more severe outcomes for COVID vaccine to compare with the severe outcomes for MMR if you want to get to the 300x numbers.

But let's cut to the chase, is 3x more dangerous enough to say that it might not be for everyone? I sure think so.

Re: U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

#870

Post by zacharylee »

pdimitar wrote: post #475
didibus wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Interesting, I'm curious what work you do? My software engineering career has never been in that situation, it's always so much ambiguity and unknown that trumps everything.

Fair question, and I was vague just so as not to balloon the comment. I work in a financial startup. The codebase is a mess and very much spaghettified. One rework that forced us to migrate our data model from 1:1 users loans to M:N (many-to-many) took two months and touched ~40% of the codebase... multiple times. Huge churn. And it just crossed two months of work, even though it's now in its very final phases. I kno…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN