This export ban follows Anthropic refusing to provide uninhibited use of AI to the US military, and the Pentagon subsequently listing them as a supply chain threat. That in turn led to Anthropic suing the government. This most recent development is obviously just a vindictive administration doing what it can to blackball Anthropic for not kowtowing to unrestricted military use like all of the other AI giants.
The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
111–120 of 131 posts
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not, between the two of us we don't read and deliberate on all of the 10,000+ comments submitted here each day. We obviously can only read a small fraction of them via routine monitoring of the site, and we're less likely to see comments in threads like this one that spend fewer than two hours on the front page. We're much more likely to see the comments that are put on our radar via community flags and…
So 1: I have no idea why you’re replying to me as if I’m attacking you. I’m not and I’m aware of how hard moderation can be as I’ve done it. 2: My idea for sentiment analysis was geared towards bias from this site and its users, not towards the moderation team. 3: While I respect the mod team I’m incredibly unimpressed with your response here, even if this was a misinterpretation of what I meant. Take a breather.
It wasn't clear whether you were making a swipe at moderation or the community or both, and I guess I tried to cover all possibilities. You've clarified that it was at the community. Thanks for that. But the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid sneering at the community, because it's repetitive and unfair to the people here. HN is large and heterogeneous.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not, between the two of us we don't read and deliberate on all of the 10,000+ comments submitted here each day. We obviously can only read a small fraction of them via routine monitoring of the site, and we're less likely to see comments in threads like this one that spend fewer than two hours on the front page. We're much more likely to see the comments that are put on our radar via community flags and…
> Believe it or not, between the two of us we don't read and deliberate on all of the 10,000+ comments submitted here each day. Aren't snarky comments against the rules of this forum? It would be great to have guidance on this because I'm naturally a sarcastic person and I try my best to not let it out on forums such as this.
I was actually trying to be good humored rather than snarky. I get that it’s not always easy to strike the right balance and sometimes the intended spirit doesn't come across.
Regarding this:
> My bad, I will do better.
Your account is only four months old but already has too many comments that are against the guidelines and the spirit of the site. If you are serious about reforming, that will be welcome and appreciated, but try to be earnest in the way you engage with us.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Believe it or not, between the two of us we don't read and deliberate on all of the 10,000+ comments submitted here each day. Aren't snarky comments against the rules of this forum? It would be great to have guidance on this because I'm naturally a sarcastic person and I try my best to not let it out on forums such as this.
I was actually trying to be good humored rather than snarky. I get that it’s not always easy to strike the right balance and sometimes the intended spirit doesn't come across. Regarding this: > My bad, I will do better. Your account is only four months old but already has too many comments that are against the guidelines and the spirit of the site. If you are serious about reforming, that will be welcome and apprecia…
I agree that the intended sprit doesn't always come across. I don't purposely post ragebait or flame bait, I'm more than willing to discuss and debate with people over my comments or views. I get that they are not always popular, but I think it would be against the spirit of this site to censor one's views just because they are unpopular. It's in the spirit of the hacker to be unconventional, and unapologetic about it.
In regards to my comment that started this discussion, it's a combination of seeing other very similar comments being posted on this and other related threads, and that it's a verbatim rendition of a viral tweet / meme from X. And the implied point is that one reaps what they sow. I understand that it may strictly go against the rules of the site but it's not (imo) particularly egregious compared to other comments I regularly see, thus it's difficult to calibrate to the accepted discourse. Like I said earlier, it's extremely difficult moderating a forum, especially when it's just two people, at the same time it's also difficult to know what constitutes acceptable behaviour when the rules are applied selectively.
Perhaps with the abundance of cheap LLM's, some sort of automation would be beneficial (assuming this isn't happening already).
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just find this idea bizarre. This bizarre social media meme that AI just performative when Opus 4.8 is just unbelievably good. As if it is so difficult to believe that a more capable model than Opus 4.8 might actually be dangerous and not just entirely a marketing stunt like a person waving to cars in a chicken outfit. I think it is really this strange form of socialization that people have internalized an anonymou…
> … when Opus 4.8 is just unbelievably good. As if it is so difficult to believe that a more capable model than Opus 4.8 might actually be dangerous It’s funny, but this sounds indistinguishable from arguments that were made about GPT-4 back in 2023 when OpenAI and its handwringing industry shills were calling for a ban on models stronger than GPT-4.
Yeah, this is an issue I have with AI boosters. Don't get me wrong, the technology is really useful in a bunch of ways, but often criticism is dismissed with you should be using the $NEW_HOTNESS not $OLD_LAME model.
And this has been happening for years!
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 1: I have no idea why you’re replying to me as if I’m attacking you. I’m not and I’m aware of how hard moderation can be as I’ve done it. 2: My idea for sentiment analysis was geared towards bias from this site and its users, not towards the moderation team. 3: While I respect the mod team I’m incredibly unimpressed with your response here, even if this was a misinterpretation of what I meant. Take a breather.
It wasn't clear whether you were making a swipe at moderation or the community or both, and I guess I tried to cover all possibilities. You've clarified that it was at the community. Thanks for that. But the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid sneering at the community, because it's repetitive and unfair to the people here. HN is large and heterogeneous.
> On that note it would be interesting to do a sentiment analysis of flagged replies. They seem all over the place and it would be interesting to see if there were any biases.
Show me where the sneer is.
You didn’t “try to cover all possibilities”. You responded to the worst interpretation of what I said and injected some heavy snark in the process.
At this point what I see is a moderator who made a mistake and needs to get the last word in which is frankly ridiculous.
Please stop interacting with me unless you have some actual rules to enforce.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it. It's entirely possible that models could be "dangerous" to fully release to the general public without guardrails and at the same time the government majorly overreacted in this case. Releasing Mythos to selected researchers and companies…
Then why did curl only find one new vulnerability thanks to Mythos, and a low-priority one at that? It’s clear that other models are quite capable of finding largely the same vulnerabilities, and that the main key is simply running a frontier model in a good harness to find vulnerabilities.
Pointing to the singular example of one of the most widely used and carefully reviewed and audited libraries on the planet is a such a weak argument that it’s hard to imagine anybody could make it in good faith.
Mythos’ ability to find vulnerabilities there provides very little signal on how effective it is in general.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't clear whether you were making a swipe at moderation or the community or both, and I guess I tried to cover all possibilities. You've clarified that it was at the community. Thanks for that. But the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid sneering at the community, because it's repetitive and unfair to the people here. HN is large and heterogeneous.
> On that note it would be interesting to do a sentiment analysis of flagged replies. They seem all over the place and it would be interesting to see if there were any biases. Show me where the sneer is. You didn’t “try to cover all possibilities”. You responded to the worst interpretation of what I said and injected some heavy snark in the process. At this point what I see is a moderator who made a mistake and needs…
> Show me where the sneer is.
What did you actually mean by this, in your first comment?
Genuinely hilarious reply.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On that note it would be interesting to do a sentiment analysis of flagged replies. They seem all over the place and it would be interesting to see if there were any biases. Show me where the sneer is. You didn’t “try to cover all possibilities”. You responded to the worst interpretation of what I said and injected some heavy snark in the process. At this point what I see is a moderator who made a mistake and needs…
> Show me where the sneer is. What did you actually mean by this, in your first comment? Genuinely hilarious reply.
That I found the reply hilarious.
Are you, a mod on this site, actually engaged in a back and forth with a user in an attempt to find anything at all to “moderate”?
You made a mistake in your interpretation of my reply and in the process of replying broke multiple of your own rules.
Your comment history is filled with reprimands of users for less.
If dang wasn’t as impressive as he is this interaction would have zero’d out any respect I have for this mod team.
If you genuinely just want to abuse your mod position go ahead and ban me for having the gall to hold you accountable I guess.
Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.
I get the impression you are conflating whether a developer can be sued to oblivion for not implementing a "full shutdown" process that applies to finetunes versus whether they can be sued to oblivion for releasing a model that may cause "critical harm" when finetuned. I'm confused why you think the only legal requirement is a "full shutdown" process. The text is there and I see a heck of a lot of requirements that a…
I get the impression that the full shutdown requirement is the main concern for open-weight from:
>SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community.
And I get the impression it's been addressed from the quote you're responding to. Neither mentions fine-tuning, which is defined elsewhere in the document. I'm not a lawyer, though, just relying on the analysis.