Live data from Hacker News

The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

wsj.com

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#61

I'm tired of this story and the corresponding fake discussions because it's completely obvious that Anthropic was singled out because they didn't play along with the current US administration and this whole charade is just part of an extortion scheme.

Had to disagree with that. However, I don't think you can discount how much Anthropic has been banging the drum about how AI is dangerous (specifically theirs) and an existential threat, etc. etc.

The rollout of Mythos was clearly manufactured to stoke the fears of companies that didn’t have access to it. They also bragged (for Fable) about how they "ran an external bug bounty that produced no universal jailbreaks in over 1,000 hours of testing" only for it be circumvented almost immediately.

So them standing on the high horse and saying it is _so powerful, yet so safe_ only to have that blow up in their face just made it that much easier to make an excuse to do this. Again, not disagreeing, but they made themselves the tall poppy here.

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#62

I'm tired of this story and the corresponding fake discussions because it's completely obvious that Anthropic was singled out because they didn't play along with the current US administration and this whole charade is just part of an extortion scheme.

Are people here deluded?

Business 101 - never take on an entity who has ultimate power over you and can conduct a course of action to put your existence at threat

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#63
post #5

These are the consequences of fear mongering as hard as they did. You reap what you sow. Now they need to convince the government that they didn't mean anything of the previous things they claimed.

OpenAI is also guilty of excessive fear mongering (remember GPT 2 is too dangerous to release?) This isn't 100% Anthropic's fault, although I'm sure that's part of it. This is the current corrupt administration executing on a grudge they have against Anthropic, and the government's new found love of picking winners and losers.

Public release of GPT (and the following models) did bring negative societal changes with it.

We now live in a world where captchas don't work, astroturfing is indistinguishable, school essays and theses don't prove any learning took place, open source maintainers gradually cease to accept stranger contributions, …

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#64
post #9

The AI labs look rather naive here. You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it. Their new argument now seems be that this was marketing hype/fluff that backfired, in a pretty obvious and predicable way, and now they’re trying to reset the conversation.

> You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it. True, you can't. But, you can think certain regulations are helpful and certain other regulations are not. And you can be annoyed when unhelpful "regulations" are put in place. This is like if I say that pitbulls are dangerous, and then th…

The act of shooting the pitbull makes for good dramatics, but you would get zero sympathy from me if your local government banned pitbull ownership. e.g. Ontario bans pitbulls. I don't have a problem with that.

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you "know" that it's "99% petty drama between the US government and Anthropic", then it's not really their fearmongering backfiring on them.

It absolutely is. They pretty much gave the government the perfect excuse to meddle in their operations.

"Don't publish safety research, or the gov will take punitive actions."

I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#66
post #62

I'm tired of this story and the corresponding fake discussions because it's completely obvious that Anthropic was singled out because they didn't play along with the current US administration and this whole charade is just part of an extortion scheme.

Are people here deluded? Business 101 - never take on an entity who has ultimate power over you and can conduct a course of action to put your existence at threat

People here aren’t authoritarians, so we don’t accept your premise that you shouldn’t take on the government. That’s not how things work in the US. Perhaps you’ve encountered Trumpists who tell you that it is, but they’re lying; they routinely applaud businesses defying any government which their dictator-in-chief doesn’t control.

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is. They pretty much gave the government the perfect excuse to meddle in their operations.

"Don't publish safety research, or the gov will take punitive actions." I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.

> safety research

They were calling for bans on open weight models. Bans on their competitors. Bans on anyone not as "enlightened" as them.

It is absolutely hilarious that they were the first to get regulated, and that it got to the point they had to turn off Fable as though it had been banned even for american citizens.

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#68
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't publish safety research, or the gov will take punitive actions." I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.

> safety research They were calling for bans on open weight models. Bans on their competitors. Bans on anyone not as "enlightened" as them. It is absolutely hilarious that they were the first to get regulated, and that it got to the point they had to turn off Fable as though it had been banned even for american citizens.

>bans on open weight models

Source for that? Cause all I could find is:

>Our view is that regulation of frontier models should focus on empirically measured risks, not on whether a system is open-or closed-weights.

-https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-case-for-targeted-regulat...

Re: The hacker sent by Anthropic to calm the government's nerves about AI safety

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 99% petty drama between the US government and Anthropic and 1% actual safety concerns.

To be clear, this is petty drama *stirred up the US government*. It's not some sort of back and forth, the government is singling them out

And to add more background: The administration is targeting Anthropic because of the TOU / EULA conflict with the DoD from a couple of months ago. Anthropic restricts use of all their models for lethal combat planning and mass domestic surveillance. The DoD was, and still is, very pissed about this. While this Fable ban was issued from the Commerce Department, it's painfully obvious executive branch agencies are tightly coordinated from the White House.

To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't legit security concerns around Fable's release. I think Andy Jassy did forward a concerning report about an apparent jailbreak in Fable, and he probably did so in good faith. The difference is if the same concern had arisen about a new model from OAI, Google, etc the action taken would not have been inventing an all-new, hyper-extreme punitive remedy and dropping it after 5p on a Friday under a very rare mechanism forcing Ant to comply in 90 mins or be subject to immediate arrest. And the "no non-U.S. citizens anywhere, anytime" restriction is functionally unprecedented.

This is the Trump admin inventing new regulatory power that's never existed before and deploying it in a punitive way to demonstrate what can happen to those who aren't sufficiently cooperative with this administration. There are half a dozen less extreme levels of restriction, which already exist, and one of those would have been deemed sufficient had it been another company.

That said, I'm certainly no Anthropic fanboy. Anthropic did play their initial Mythos self-restriction for PR value. But I think it's likely the Mythos self-restriction was a responsible action initially suggested by their AI safety team in good faith. Giving security researchers time to evaluate it and major companies time to test it against their code bases probably was reasonable and prudent. That doesn't mean it wasn't also good for PR and brand perception. I think there are senior people inside Anthropic who are genuinely concerned about AI safety. Personally, I don't have the expertise to gauge if those concerns are justified, but I believe they believe it. I also think there are senior people at Anthropic who are focused more on building the business, doing the IPO and "winning" the silicon valley game. All of these things can be simultaneously true.

Post reply on HN