151–160 of 217 posts
I used Fable last week to scan my own work for security errors (and readability issues), I wasn't thinking about the ban on infosec use I just wanted the most well trained output.
One project in the monorepo triggered a Opus fallback and infosec/biology warning.
The other project scanned fine and showed a bunch of potential exploits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, "not like this" is still the correct conclusion to draw with respect to this kind of corrupt political favoritism.
Where is the favoritism? Did other CEOs come out and say their models are crazy dangerous? Dario asked for this behavior and he got it. I guess he hoped to kneecap Deepseek or others. That's how companies operate, once they are big enough they want all the regulations because they know they can navigate them and others catching up may not be able to. Their own fear mongering around this demand backfired.
I agree that the fear mongering is bad, but that's a total pretext for what happened here.
Any company building this kind of tech should have a separate shell headquarters on some low regulation island country. Any government work can be done via MOU with a US subsidiary staffed by Americans. This kind of capricious, unexplained control is bullsh*t. I’m not saying that I want companies to have to go offshore or that that would be a good thing. Just that you’ve got no leverage if your corporate structure ca…
Anthropic sowing: Hehe yeah guys check out this model it's super duper scary and powerful it's a huge deal Anthropic reaping: Hey wait a second you weren't supposed to take that seriously it was just marketing :(
It can both be true that models at Fable capability level are national security concerns while Anthropic is being hypocritical. If the Trump admin is also willing to apply the same scrutiny to GPT-5.6 and other Fable-level models, I think it is a good thing. But given the admin's history with Anthropic (such as declaring it a supply chain risk while ignoring Chinese labs), there is some smell of targeting.
So at some point - don't say your model is capable of hacking even if it is and you are clean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... it isn't? What word would you use for a government policy that controls the behavior of a private company? The word for that kind of policy is "regulation".
There is no policy.
Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
> Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Institutions are not built around zero trust. Because when we assume attackers are identifiable, and there is some level of integrity, that makes things a lot simpler and cheaper. I will not expect my pediatrician to want to kill my child and they certainly could, but it would be completely bonkers to try to guard against that. Th…
Traditionally this was applied to people in power with the power of a good old fashioned lynch mob. If you obtain great power and use it to start hurting large numbers of people, the citizenry at large would drag that person out into the street and behead or beat them to death.
It worked pretty well for all societies throughout history, including the West. If a person becomes a danger to society, they should be removed from society with proportional prejudice. That's the guardrail society has always had.
Problem is now that those in power have managed to convince large fractions of the population that it's wrong to say mean things about sociopathic mass murderers and child rapists or the guy who is actively trying to kill you personally.
Yes, obviously. People really need to update their priors on how the US operates now. Laws are out, loyalty is in. There is an extraordinarily powerful unitary executive in whom the will of the people resides and it is the job of the government and society to work towards the will of this powerful executive. There are no checks or balances or alternative centres of power (civil, political, clerical, etc) allowed. Thi…
Anthropic themselves refused to allow the Pentagon use of its models for any legal purpose - instead the wanted a subset picked by Anthropic. It's ironic that you're accusing the government of ignoring the law when Anthropic openly wishes to set it's own private laws.
Didn't their CEO argue how super powerful and dangerous their AI models are and government should be able to restricting usage https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron... > "We're proposing stronger regulation of the technology, proposing giving the government the ability to, again, in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology," he said. The government: "We're restricting its usage to US…
You guys are going to have to find another argument because this is just stupid. Being singled out doesn’t equate to regulation being applied. The story is: anthropic refuses to give the US give an abliterated version of Claude for their weapons system, the US gov retaliates. You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job
Is regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
For the most part no. The Administrative Procedures Act outlines a fairly robust process for rulemaking (ie regulations must go through a notice period, must be justified etc) and adjudication (ie per-person decisions must have notice, ability to have counsel, be appealable etc).
However there's also lots of authority given to the president (and executive office of the president) to which the APA doesn't apply. This includes powers the constitution gives to the president directly and (mostly emergency) powers congress gives to the president. Sadly political processes and supreme court cases have hugely increases what can be done with this*.
Moreover, it's been a frequent pattern (over many decades, but especially under Trump) for the president to simply nakedly overstep their authority. Sometimes there's no push back (see: 9/11); sometimes the damage is done even if it's eventually overruled. Never is there any consequences though, so the pattern repeats.
* E.g. The president's control of the military is supposed to be checked by congress deciding when to declare war. However the war powers act has in practice played out to allow the president to unilaterally start wars, especially as the supreme court has stepped in to make the war powers act less effective.