The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 6:16 PM UTC

gAI wrote: post #120

staticman2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 analys…

Post by gAI » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

staticman2 wrote: post #122

gAI wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 analys…

You claim you "get the impression" then do not quote either the law or a third party analysis of the law. Apparently we are supposed to believe this does not ban open source because the committee didn't write "This bans open source" in the beginning of the committee notes then circle it 3 times in red pen.

Post by staticman2 » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

gAI wrote: post #123

staticman2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim you "get the impression" then do not quote either the law or a third party analysis of the law. Apparently we are supposed to believe this does not ban open source because the committee didn't write "This bans open source" in the beginning of the committee notes then circle it 3 times in red pen.

No, we're supposed to believe the official California Assembly committee bill analysis of SB 1047 over hacker news comments. Notably, SB 1047 passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in September 2024. So whether or not it would have restricted open-weight models is an open question that won't get an answer.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 4:18 AM UTC

gAI wrote: post #126

staticman2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are not supposed to treat a politician or their staff’s statement about how their proposed bill works as dispositive and ignore the statutory text or third party analysis. I’m glad we clarified the epistemological issue, so thank you for replying. It is strange that half your reply is appeal to the authority of a not on point source and half is epistemological learned helplessness about what the impact of a v…

It's called epistemological humility, and you could benefit.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 11:13 AM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #102

argee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploits are created ("crafted" might be a better word), vulnerabilities are discovered. Unless you're hiding a RAT behind a public trigger in your code on purpose, I guess?

In general, the exploit has been (however systematically) stumbled upon, or felt through like a person navigating a physical maze. Nobody would say that person "created" the solution to the maze. The maze is solvable (that's the latent vulnerability), the person "discovered" the way through.