Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks? Yes, because then we get to use SOTA models to defend against the exact same attacks. Fable detected issues in my projects but got downgraded back to Opus before it could tell me about them or fix them. In what world could that possibly be reasonable?
I agree and don’t think they should have been forced to pull it, but what I’m surprised about is how many people are accusing Anthropic of being liars or trying to overhype the danger. It IS dangerous, which is why it can identify vulnerabilities.
Did Anthropic ask for this?
151–160 of 176 posts
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m surprised people are reacting so strongly over this. Suppose there is a huge concern—would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks? I used Fable 5 for a fair amount of tasks before they pulled it and I can only imagine what an untapped version of that could do. It’s very capable and equally aggressive in accomplishing its goals.
Is this not the same as security by obscurity? Open source is more secure because it's more open and thus is able to have flaws found in it more easily. So I'd probably prefer more people to have Fable level models than not.
I’m not a security expert by any stretch, and I also want Fable it helped me a lot in a short time, but I don’t like that so many people are throwing shade at Anthropic for speaking the truth. Mythos and Fable are dangerous.
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a simple solution but if Anthropic was actually to dedicate all its resources this way wouldn't the investors just demand a new CEO? I think Anthropic believe these risks, but I also think they've spent so much time talking to Claude that they've pretty much lost their minds now. Anthropic have a model welfare department and have numerous times suggested that Claude is conscious and has human like emoti…
"Are AIs conscious?" is not currently answerable because "Are humans conscious?" is not currently answerable. I know I'm conscious because I perceive (it) directly. Everyone else's consciousness basically depends on an assumption; on taking them at their word when they say they're conscious. Now I ask an AI if it's conscious and it says it doesn't know, but it sorta thinks it might be. Okay, it's probably not conscio…
It's not a difficult leap to assume a twin brother is conscious. If you think it is, why do you think this?
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just think that it's dodging the question in this case. It's true that the US government is run by crooks who'd all be serving prison sentences in a just world, and that they'd certainly do whatever Anthropic wants in exchange for a sufficiently large bribe. But the US government also serves a number of important roles in American society that we can't simply turn off and come back to in 2029.
Your last sentence sounds reasonable. Can you give examples?
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the same is true of nuclear reaction research. One camp, using the same mechanism, is trying to make devices that end the world. One camp, using the same mechanism, is trying to save the world. That nuclear/AI COULD end the world or COULD save humanity is exactly the reason that a truly neutral party would not describe either tech as a doomsday device but would instead describe either as technologies bearin…
Your example kind of proves your position wrong, no? Nuclear power--another device you are yourself admitting is widely understood to be a doomsday device in the wrong hands--is also highly regulated and I cannot just create a company that sells a nuclear power device and I extra cannot do so and sell it to foreign nationals. If you make a device that you claim is capable of ending the world, you can and should be re…
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#156Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#157Earlier 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.
The thing about marketing is that it’s outcome based speech. It’s not really about truth or even feeling, it’s about using the right words to evoke the right outcome. So, we have to think about what Anthropics desired outcome is.
Do they want AI regulation? If so, then they might use language to make it appear as though this new, dangerous technology must be controlled.
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a simple solution but if Anthropic was actually to dedicate all its resources this way wouldn't the investors just demand a new CEO? I think Anthropic believe these risks, but I also think they've spent so much time talking to Claude that they've pretty much lost their minds now. Anthropic have a model welfare department and have numerous times suggested that Claude is conscious and has human like emoti…
"Are AIs conscious?" is not currently answerable because "Are humans conscious?" is not currently answerable. I know I'm conscious because I perceive (it) directly. Everyone else's consciousness basically depends on an assumption; on taking them at their word when they say they're conscious. Now I ask an AI if it's conscious and it says it doesn't know, but it sorta thinks it might be. Okay, it's probably not conscio…
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#159What I feel like is missing in the common discourse here is that Anthropic genuinely believes that AI poses an existential risk for humanity either in terms of literal survival or extreme mass surveillance, human disempowerment etc. So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? I.e. OpenAI just went full evil corpo mode and went all in on the…
RSI within a top-down, concentrated power structure creates an unstable equilibrium and will instantly devolve into an epic power struggle. If you control the company/computers/military with the one most powerful thing, you control everything else. It will probably just be seized but then you instantly become a target to all the other dispossessed/scared/opportunistic people who think they would do a better job than you, or just want it. It’s a stupid power fantasy to think that people with guns and will just let you reign from above as some kind of benevolent researcher-king with absolute, unaccountable control over the economy. Even worse if there’s mass joblessness and nothing else keeping most people busy.
If we can build a horizontal, federated (not the performative kind like Bluesky, has to actually be performance competitive and distributed without jank) intelligence on a mix of commodity and specialized hardware - which BTW is exactly what even Anthropic would have to work with too, a bunch of datacenter gpus of different generations + traditional compute + edge compute/network devices, maybe some ASICs, then finally consumer devices and webgpu - then there is much less risk that AI will be used to concentrate power or amplify bad actors (without their actions being immediately reacted against by the overwhelmingly larger set of good or neutral-with-something-to-lose actors).
The main barrier to federated learning is figuring out how to economically structure this, it has to have a self-funding mechanism that is hopefully more grounded in actual value than something like crypto where it’s purely forward-looking demand (/speculation) or artificial/enforced scarcity. Also it obviously has to be secure, but the risks are different vs companies like Anthropic that are trying to guard their IP - in this case it’s mostly just protection from bad actors trying to pollute training data in a way that would only be noticed after it’s expensive to fork away from, plus just generally using it as a malware distribution or data collection mechanism.
Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a contract had been negotiated with the exact terms that Anthropic pushed to keep in place.
We don't have the actual contracts publicly. So I bet it has terms that let the government do what it wants ultimately by naming exceptions. That way OpenAI can claim it has some controls in place while the military has the freedom it needs practically.