101–110 of 176 posts
They will either play ball with the US government on the US government's terms or they will be replaced or destroyed.
It is a misconception for them to believe they can dictate the terms of this technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another neutral party might not believe it's really a doomsday device and that what currently looks like exponential growth in capability could be an s-curve that plateaus in a year or two. After that, it will be diminishing returns to invest heavily into a tech that won't get much better. So what are the current leaders in the field supposed to do to stave off competition? They should convince the public that they d…
I completely agree with you. I think the problem is that Anthropic believes their own BS, and thinks it IS a Doomsday device which only THEY can control. I think that's what's produced this outcome.
I think it's a near universal phenomenon that people with extraordinary amounts of power become victims of their own hubris. Once you get sufficiently decoupled from the consequences of your own actions, it is near impossible to tether yourself to a calibrated sense of reality. So I genuinely think that Amodei thought here that he was building a moat - set a very high bar for safety at exactly the line Anthropic but…
> I am sure they calculated in the possibility of their own model being restricted. Doubt. Had they foreseen this, they would have started verifying the identity of their customers. That would have allowed them to keep their US customers when the US government banned foreign persons from accessing Fable. Since they were forced to turn off Fable for everyone , it follows that they were not prepared for that possibilit…
Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…
Okay, but hasn't OpenAI been doing the same thing for years? They seem to be on slightly better terms though...
The recent OpenAI post calls for mandatory safety certification of all frontier level models:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this question mean? Of course they are state-of-the-art. After all, they are the most recent and most advanced models out of Anthropic. If/when they release a new version of their models, Mythos/Fable will cease to be state-of-the-art, as the new ones become it.
It means Mythos/Fable was the strongest model globally, not just the newest model from a company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another neutral party might not believe it's really a doomsday device and that what currently looks like exponential growth in capability could be an s-curve that plateaus in a year or two. After that, it will be diminishing returns to invest heavily into a tech that won't get much better. So what are the current leaders in the field supposed to do to stave off competition? They should convince the public that they d…
I was going to say. "Doomsday Device Company" is a wildly loaded description coming from an allegedly "neutral" party.
“AGI is just around the corner and could destroy humanity if we don’t solve alignment” is something AI leadership at multiple companies have publicly said.
Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…
Another neutral party might not believe it's really a doomsday device and that what currently looks like exponential growth in capability could be an s-curve that plateaus in a year or two. After that, it will be diminishing returns to invest heavily into a tech that won't get much better. So what are the current leaders in the field supposed to do to stave off competition? They should convince the public that they d…
Having the US control export your flagship model is the ultimate stamp approval in the AI race. All headliners are american, but one us too poweful to be made available. It just reads like if someone was riding an IPO.
It is also, paradoxically, a wink to the 90's. But we're not in the 90's, and the cat is out of the box, and in 6-12 months everyone else will be at this tier. This is, clearly, an attempt to boost a model that isnt that revolutionary. I used Fable, and for my work, its mostly a waste of tokens. It seems a bit better than Opus 4.8 - but 4.8 the past week(s) has actually been top knotch; so lets make it a "myth" and have secops tell stories about it, so everyone will pay when the time comes; will you, ceo/cto, allow your company to fall behind? Of course not. You will pay. For modest results, apparently, but the hype is there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am sure they calculated in the possibility of their own model being restricted. Doubt. Had they foreseen this, they would have started verifying the identity of their customers. That would have allowed them to keep their US customers when the US government banned foreign persons from accessing Fable. Since they were forced to turn off Fable for everyone , it follows that they were not prepared for that possibilit…
The big problem Anthropic faces isn't implementing a KYC workflow, but the fact that many if not most of their own employees are no longer allowed to work on Fable/Mythos.
And API is much more profitable (relatively) than subscribers for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's quite a bit more complicated than that." Ohhh no it isn't! (Ohh yes it is) etc "as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic" I run LLMs on my own gear with llama.cpp (compiled from source) and I could not tell you anything about either company except they fiddle with AI stuff and that (I don't actually care). I glaze over on news about both organisations in equal measure on mention. I think…
I'm not sure what your personal anecdote has to do with general trends, there have always been hermits in history. I also run local models with llama.cpp but I actually stay abreast of the issues in the field as we may similarly be impacted by recent actions.
HN is a forum and as far as I am aware, anecdata is allowed here. You might disagree with me and my experience and that is fine too but please don't denigrate me.