I suspect these companies know they can't actually provide the saftey people demand ... in that way this is more "honest".
Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
251–260 of 716 posts
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#252> “We felt that it wouldn't actually help anyone for us to stop training AI models,”
Is the implication here that Anthropic admits they already can't meet their own risk and safety guidelines? Why else would they have to stop training models?
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#253Of course the US is going to do this and of course its in Anthropics best interest to comply. Right now China is flooding HuggingFace with models that will inevitably have this capability. Right now there are hundreds of models being hosted that have been deliberately processed to remove refusals and their safety training. Everyone who keeps up with this knows about it. HF knows about it. And it is pretty obvious tha…
> But let's worry about what the US DoD is doing They want Anthropic to enabling mass surveillance and autonomous attack systems with no human in the loop. Hardly compares to a kid downloading a model to experiment with.
*To improve* mass surveillance and autonomous attack systems with no human in the loop. China and USA already had those kind of systems way before AI.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#254This headline unfortunately offers more smoke than light. This article has nothing to do with the current tête-à-tête with the Pentagon. It is discussing one specific change to Anthropic's "Responsible Scaling Policy" that the company publicly released today as version "3.0".
[deleted]
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were well-publicized cases of Gemini producing more diverse founding fathers images, female popes, etc. Also, snarky tone is against the HN guidelines.
Sorry, let me give a specific citation of Elon injecting his personal bias into the output of his tools: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/elon-musk... As for the "Elon fingering your amygdala with a ridiculous hypothetical" snark, well, I think the HN crowd in particular understands how the culture wars are just theater to push through billionaires' personal self-centered interests at the expense of…
Your question was “Was there actually a case of a model saying "America's founding father were black women"
Whether someone else is injecting different bias is whataboutism. So it seems you are trying to make a different point, but not being clear about it.
And your “I think the HN crowd understands…” point is just a “no true Scotsman” fallacy to veil an argument that goes against guidelines. Related to the broader topic, there is a role for self-policing if we don’t want the site to be a cesspool of rage bait.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems. Of course it is. Think about it this way: if you could guarantee that the military suffers no human losses when attacking a foreign country, do you think that's going to more or less foreign interventions? The tools available to the military influence policy, these things are linked. US military is already overwhelmingly powerful…
That's so delusional. The US military is currently preparing for a potential conflict with China to stop an invasion with Taiwan. They don't have anything near "overwhelming force" for that mission: recent simulations put it about even at best. People who believe they don't need any improved autonomous weapons are simply uninformed.
You are claiming all americans must happily create weapons.
Thats a silly statement to most americans and humans
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#257> “We felt that it wouldn't actually help anyone for us to stop training AI models,” How magnanimous! They are only thinking of others, you see. They are rejecting their safety pledge for you . > “We didn't really feel, with the rapid advance of AI, that it made sense for us to make unilateral commitments … if competitors are blazing ahead.” Oops, said the quiet part out loud that it’s all about money. “I mean, if al…
[flagged]
david guetta, if that really is you, stick to music rather than using Nazi man's propaganda machine
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP was referred to lack of regulation and oversight over the government.
Of course, but that is incoherent. Regulation and oversight is government.
No, it is a famously coherent concept over millenia.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?"
>>A Latin phrase found in the Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–348), a work of the 1st–2nd century Roman poet Juvenal. It may be translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?". ... The phrase, as it is normally quoted in Latin, comes from the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st–2nd century Roman satirist. ...Its modern usage the phrase has wide-reaching applications to concepts such as tyrannical governments, uncontrollably oppressive dictatorships, and police or judicial corruption and overreach... [0]
The point is a government that is not overseen by the people devolves into tyranny.
So yes, the point is to regulate the regulators and oversee the oversight committee.
Anthropic was happy to have it's AI used for military purposes, with two exceptions: 1) no automated killing, there had to be a human in the "kill chain" of command, and 2) no use for mass surveillance. This govt "Dept of War" is demanding Anthropic drop those two safety requirements or it threatens to make Anthropic a pariah. These demands by the govt are both immoral and insane. The "regulator and overseer" needs to be regulated and overseen.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#259Aaaand I cancelled.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government is forcing them to change their policy, by definition that is regulation and oversight. Let's say that the government was forcing a company to change their overall right-to-repair or return policy in order to avoid being on a blacklist, would that not be seen as oversight and regulation? Whether the regulation is legitimate or of benefit is a different argument.
You misunderstand - a government normally represents the people, we appoint them to well, govern, in our name. I understand how this is confusing in a place like the US, where the government often seems to represent the business (or lately a small group of poor examples of humanity), not the people.
Normally?
All governments are in the egg-breaking business some of the time. Most of them are most of the time. Some of them all of the time.
Very few are good at making omelettes.