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

The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#111

Post by zombot »

ALLTaken wrote: post #98
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had it worse because Gates was a megalomaniac who was so self-absorbed he didn't understand he was supposed to bribe via "donations". Tech companies all learned the same as other sectors; it's more profitable to have lobbyists greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians from the get go, and "donate" to their success for a lifetime of consultation and quid pro quo. This is also why all virtues signaled by cor…

That's such a bad state of existence for people within that Government. How could anything be improved by new companies from now on? A corrupt government would never make bribes illegal, but a scrum style bribe-outcome management could become measured and used publicly? No idea where all this goes..

It should be patently obvious where all of this goes.

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#112

Post by LunaSea »

Aurornis wrote: post #25
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #14

> SK Telecom has poured capital into Anthropic several times, including a $100 million investment in 2023 that coincided with the formation of a commercial partnership to develop an AI model tailored to the telecommunications industry. > the White House asked Anthropic to revoke SK Telecom’s access to Mythos, according to a person close to the AI lab. The company immediately complied, Lesson learned - don't invest in…

Their investment in the company and their ability to use the services are orthogonal. I'm sure they're not happy about losing access to the model, but the amount of money they're going to make from their investment will more than make up for it.

They aren't orthogonal.

If you invested in the company, you are a part owner.

If you are part owner, you deserve to have access to any company internals.

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#113

Post by zombot »

paulsutter wrote: post #78
wood_spirit wrote: post #23

The articles and discussion around this and the Amazon story all seem to me to be an earnest tech press and community searching for a genuine reason for the administration blocking Anthropic’s models. However, thinking back to the spat with the DoD and more generally how the administration is much more supportive - and supported by - OpenAI and XAI and it’s easy to imagine this is just another escalation in the fight…

Dario (of Mythos): "Companies we gave it to said – this is a super weapon. you should have to own a gun license to use it. please don't release this" Mythos is clearly dual use (and automatically subject to export controls), even if Anthropic didn’t understand what that means. Yes this administration can be capricious and hyperpartisan. This isn’t one of those cases.

That's just some sales pitch propaganda ad. With trillions of dollars of investments at stake you can't believe anything the interested parties say.

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#114

Post by dismalpedigree »

LunaSea wrote: post #112
Aurornis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their investment in the company and their ability to use the services are orthogonal. I'm sure they're not happy about losing access to the model, but the amount of money they're going to make from their investment will more than make up for it.

They aren't orthogonal. If you invested in the company, you are a part owner. If you are part owner, you deserve to have access to any company internals.

So i buy one share of stock in a company and now I have access to all the internals? Can i go onsite and demand meetings?

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#116

Post by FergusArgyll »

vintermann wrote: post #103
skeledrew wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeepSeek took everyone by surprise with R1. I'm pretty sure they and/or others will do the unexpected again. Not as if the US has a monopoly on awesome talent.

A quick look at the author names on most recent big AI papers, says that's an understatement. US's comparative advantage is in data centers, not in expertise. Of course, they're betting they won't need those experts soon.

The question you (and parent) are dodging is why doesn't Google and Meta catch up?

US closed labs don't release papers as I'm sure you know

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#117

Post by jongjong »

Danox wrote: post #46
tristanj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic is going through the classic Ideological Resistance phase where they fight with the government on principles, that every major tech company also went through. Google, Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Microsoft (especially Microsoft) all had this phase. Then the companies realize fighting the US government is a lot of effort, expensive and creates a lot of drama, and it's easier to reach a mutual understanding.

They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. Have a legal department trained to be the buffer between you and the government any contact any questions goes through them and since you’re paying them a ton of mone…

If they had kept their distance, they probably wouldn't exist today. The dependency on government has been critical for any tech company. They'd have been replaced by a different company that is willing to cater to the government's every whim.

That said, the founders of these companies could have lobbied the government to ban corporate lobbying.

It's like; if there's gov money on the table, then it'd be a mistake to let your competitor take it. However, if you ensure that government money is never on the table for anyone, then that's one less thing for everyone to have to compete over and throw money at. Everyone can save their money for other things.

The government should never have allowed political lobbying to become a competitive market.

Also, political campaigns should not be allowed to raise private funds. That is insane. The government should fund all candidates' campaigns and allocate equal funding. Candidates shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their own campaign either IMO.

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#118

Post by LunaSea »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #114
LunaSea wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't orthogonal. If you invested in the company, you are a part owner. If you are part owner, you deserve to have access to any company internals.

So i buy one share of stock in a company and now I have access to all the internals? Can i go onsite and demand meetings?

What do you think that due diligence is?

Its literally a company opening up its internals to reassure a potential investors about the tech.

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#119

Post by vintermann »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #116
vintermann wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick look at the author names on most recent big AI papers, says that's an understatement. US's comparative advantage is in data centers, not in expertise. Of course, they're betting they won't need those experts soon.

The question you (and parent) are dodging is why doesn't Google and Meta catch up? US closed labs don't release papers as I'm sure you know

US companies used to release lots of papers. You can go back to when they did, and see for yourself how many Chinese names there are on them. Or you can look at those which still publish a lot, like Nvidia.

Google is catching up, especially by the metric of "making money".

Meta from the start clearly had a strategy not of competing to dominate, but preventing their competitors from dominating by releasing open models and software. (You have them to thank you're not working in Tensorflow right now)

Re: The Korean telecom giant at the center of Anthropic's Mythos controversy

#120

Post by smithoc »

TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #69
tristanj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had it worse. Bill Gates was openly hostile and dismissive of the US government during Microsoft's anti-trust investigation, he believed anti-trust law was illegitimate and shouldn't apply to tech companies. He did not take the investigation seriously and repeatedly argued with investigators in his court deposition. In response, Microsoft got raked over the coals by the government, the company was almost br…

Microsoft had it worse because Gates was a megalomaniac who was so self-absorbed he didn't understand he was supposed to bribe via "donations". Tech companies all learned the same as other sectors; it's more profitable to have lobbyists greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians from the get go, and "donate" to their success for a lifetime of consultation and quid pro quo. This is also why all virtues signaled by cor…

This is the first time I have seen refusing to pay bribes framed as a moral failing and character flaw.

Perhaps it's not that he "didn't understand he was supposed to bribe" but rather that he thought that system was bad and antiquated and that he was taking a principled stand for the modern (of the time) technology industry to move away from those historical norms.

It didn't work, but he's not bad for trying.

Post reply on HN