Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did Anthropic ask for this?

verysane.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#31

Post by xscott »

ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

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 do have a doomsday device, claim it must be regulated, and then they can profit from their duopoly because it's exceedingly expensive to break into the high end of the market. The government has its own nefarious incentives, not limited to collecting fees and using the unrestricted versions for surveillance or black hat stuff.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#33

Post by ivraatiems »

xscott wrote: post #31
ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

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.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#34

Post by gerdesj »

threatofrain wrote: post #22
ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

It's quite a bit more complicated than that. The popular narrative is not exactly on Anthropic, as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic. The narrative is on AI and whether everything we know about society is going to change. Also, as far as priorities and worries go, for most people cybersecurity is way down the list.

"It's quite a bit more complicated than that."

Ohhh no it isn't! (Ohh yes it is) etc

"as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic"

I run LLMs on my own gear with llama.cpp (compiled from source) and I could not tell you anything about either company except they fiddle with AI stuff and that (I don't actually care). I glaze over on news about both organisations in equal measure on mention.

I think you'll find that the general public would not be able to name either company without being asked to pronounce their name from it being written down.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#35

Post by ralph84 »

gordonhart wrote: post #27
ralph84 wrote: post #25

This was an opportunistic hit job by Amazon. After the SpaceX IPO, Amazon realized there was a good chance Anthropic's post-IPO market cap would exceed Amazon's. No doubt they are maneuvering behind the scenes for regulations that the big cloud vendors be the only authorized operators of LLMs for national security reasons.

Amazon owns 15-20% of Anthropic.

They don't have a seat on the board. They're smart enough to understand the threat to their business posed by frontier models they don't control.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#36

Post by slashdave »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #14

No, Anthropic clearly did not ask for this. 1. "Dario is known for writing about regulation and the direction of AI as an industry and Anthropic in particular, and what he says is taken very seriously and is considered a definitive statement of the company’s position." This is patently ridiculous. A CEO's blog post is not an official company statement or any sort of binding agreement. 2. "Are there protective measure…

> It clearly politically motivated, and clearly arbitrary

Arbitrary, yes. Politically motivated? I think you are giving the administration way too much credit.

I think what this is are simply incompetent people with too much influence. I mean, Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick? What the heck do they understand about this technology?

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/13/inside-the-whirlwin...

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#37

Post by sillysaurusx »

gerdesj wrote: post #34
threatofrain wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that. The popular narrative is not exactly on Anthropic, as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic. The narrative is on AI and whether everything we know about society is going to change. Also, as far as priorities and worries go, for most people cybersecurity is way down the list.

"It's quite a bit more complicated than that." Ohhh no it isn't! (Ohh yes it is) etc "as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic" I run LLMs on my own gear with llama.cpp (compiled from source) and I could not tell you anything about either company except they fiddle with AI stuff and that (I don't actually care). I glaze over on news about both organisations in equal measure on mention. I think…

My eighty year old father brought up OpenAI unprompted a few months ago. At this point it’s hard to find anyone who hasn’t heard of OpenAI.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#38

Post by quatonion »

Half of me wonders if it was all a live simulation/drill, to practice what happens if a much more serious event occurs, and a model needed to be quickly shut down.

Under such conditions we would be looking at Amazon's actions through a much more benevolent lens.

Not saying it has been, but it certainly crossed my mind as something worth doing regardless.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#39

Post by Barrin92 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

>It is completely logical, then, for the US Government to say: No

Not sure about that one given that the US government just reversed a ban on the exports on the very chips to China that enable said technologies, you don't hear so much about the chip wars any more.

I think entrepreneurs largely approached this administration with the attitude that if you're running Doomsday Incorporated they aren't going to say, "no, don't export that", but "hell yeah baby, how do we get a 25% cut on every sale?" because that's quite literally what they did on the hardware front.

I mean I have no strong opinion on whether Antrophics statement are true or smart, but the idea that it was regulated because someone in this administration thought it posed incalculable risks is a bit funny, i"m pretty sure they wear that as a logo printed on their t-shirts, it seems to be the sole guiding principle of their foreign policies. Palantir has successfully used doom-mongering as an advertisement strategy for a decade or so

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#40

Post by xscott »

ivraatiems wrote: post #33
xscott wrote: post #31

Earlier 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.

It's tough to know who believes what at that level, because if they are aiming for regulatory capture they need to maintain the illusion.
Post reply on HN