Does anyone still believe anything this guy says?
When this tool insists it has nothing to do with their vendetta against Amodei, you know that's exactly what this is about.
Fable situation update from David Sacks
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#22> In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. This is what makes me feel Sacks is speaking the truth here, despite my generally not trusting him (due to MAGA sycophancy) or this administration in general. Given Anth…
[deleted]
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#23David Sacks is probably the least credible guy associated with Trump administration AI policy. Yes, worse than Hegseth and Trump himself. Consistently duplicitous. On the other hand, Anthropic really needs to up its game here. I am sympathetic to their position, but their actions betray a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation. If we're to believe that only they can align a super intelligence, they…
might be easier to align the super intelligence than Trump
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#24Remember when the admin tried to kill anthropic with a ridiculous national defense supply chain order that the courts blocked - I'm not sure why anyone would believe them credible now
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#25In the end, core infrastructure projects need to get their shit together, use Mythos to patch their software, then the tool needs to be available to the public. There is no way to keep the lid on advanced coding AIs. I do not believe it when an admin ally says the government is acting in good faith or that there is no bitterness or history with DoD (not DoW, another indicator he's full of it). The administration has…
But the world cannot use Mythos. Only some “trusted partners” of Anthropic can. Whatever that means. The rest are stuck with Fable, which will refuse to help find vulnerabilities in your own software.
They need to get their shit together with anthropic and get access, then. I'm only mildly flippant.
Multiple vendors have probably run Linux through Mythos. I wonder if any patches are going upstream.
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#26> In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. This is what makes me feel Sacks is speaking the truth here, despite my generally not trusting him (due to MAGA sycophancy) or this administration in general. Given Anth…
"even a small jailbreak should cause them to pull back and fix it first, right"
You do realize that LLMs are summarizations of vast numbers of weights, don't you? You don't "fix" a weight and suddenly everything is alright. You can only probe constantly in a vast space and see if the results you can command matter or not.
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#27David Sacks is probably the least credible guy associated with Trump administration AI policy. Yes, worse than Hegseth and Trump himself. Consistently duplicitous. On the other hand, Anthropic really needs to up its game here. I am sympathetic to their position, but their actions betray a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation. If we're to believe that only they can align a super intelligence, they…
Alternatively, they could stop advocating for government control of “dangerous” (aka competitively advanced) models.
If you are running a pull-up-the-ladder play, it helps to be ensconced above it first.
Re: Fable situation update from David Sacks
#28David Sacks is probably the least credible guy associated with Trump administration AI policy. Yes, worse than Hegseth and Trump himself. Consistently duplicitous. On the other hand, Anthropic really needs to up its game here. I am sympathetic to their position, but their actions betray a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation. If we're to believe that only they can align a super intelligence, they…
Alternatively, they could stop advocating for government control of “dangerous” (aka competitively advanced) models. If you are running a pull-up-the-ladder play, it helps to be ensconced above it first.
Everyone I know who works at Anthropic genuinely believes in safety and has deep concerns about the potential existential impact of AI; the "they are just hucksters pretending to care about it so they can run a scam" point of view isn't at all close to reality.
But, granting it for the sake of argument, yeah, they're clearly failing there: if other companies are able to outcompete them on the regulatory capture front, then if that's their strategy then they're losing.