681–690 of 873 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're only dependent on American services because we trusted America Trump has ruined that, so now we'll be moving to build our own alternatives
What exactly American services did to you that stopped to trust them?
https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-co...
Trump is using sanctions and started a trade war with Europe.
Europe would be mad to entrust their digital ecosystem to such a country
>> More than 100 companies and institutions will now have access to Mythos 5, including many Fortune 500 companies, a source familiar with the new directive said, declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. Who are those 100 companies? Clearly they can't compete on merit and have rubbed some hands to be picked as winners...at least for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is almost guaranteed it will also introduce export controls on the models. The current models are open weights and already out the door. They are hosted by many providers and are already comparatively good in many domains. Even if this generation is the last one to be open, I‘d argue it would already put the US providers in trouble
Also, the evidence isn't that China is doing anything magic - it seems AI is just energy + compute as opposed to any special research edge. There is reason to think that anyone would be capable of building these models. They're generic and every country will eventually catch up at a speed depending on how economically capable they are at buildign data centres. I'm upbreat about China because they seem to be the bigge…
If this becomes the norm, what incentive does the rest of the world have to keep their markets open to the US? If US companies have a large unfair advantage such that domestic competitors are no longer able to compete, then wouldn't it make sense for governments around the world to ban or tariff US products and services? If I was responsible for national economic policy, I would place this at the top of my non-emerge…
I think they have very little room for manoeuvre - companies like AWS or Microsoft can simply you are too cocky and we will shutdown infrastructure your country is running on if you don't bend the knee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America has to be careful not to push Europe into the direction of China though. And with how Trump acts that might happen sooner than they would like. Bullying like how Trump prefers to do only works until some point. Europe mostly seems to bet on America changing its tune again once Trump is gone but we have to wait and see if the rot in America hasnt set in too deep already.
Even if America pushes EU to be like China, they cannot be China. China is one country ruled by one law and in a unified vision. On the other hand EU is a band of 27 countries with different laws, different problems and different priorities. They couldn’t even agree on a response for Ukraine-Russian war and present a unified front and do you think they would present a unified front against Americans?
If this becomes the norm, what incentive does the rest of the world have to keep their markets open to the US? If US companies have a large unfair advantage such that domestic competitors are no longer able to compete, then wouldn't it make sense for governments around the world to ban or tariff US products and services? If I was responsible for national economic policy, I would place this at the top of my non-emerge…
One would have to have leverage to put tariff on US and not worry about retaliation. Almost every country is tightly coupled with US, let it be trade or reliance on technology. I can only think of Russia that is decoupled from US at the moment and they are stuck with Putin that still lives with imperial mindset rather than actually being a rival to US
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is what happened. Anthropic could have absolutely complied with the government order, even in the most minimal fashion possible. Instead they chose to block everybody, and then give a link blaming the government. I think it's most likely that they felt that this would drive wide antagonism towards the government which would help put them in a more favorable situation for future negotiations to esta…
"Our models are so good they are banned by the government" I don't see any way how releasing an incrementally better model could get even close to the positive PR. For every Mythos token not sold because of this they'll sell dozens of Fable, Opus and so on. Perhaps the ban did not origin at Anthropic, as a PR stunt, but genuinely at some government desk. Entirely possible. But Anthropic would be foolish to not pick u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They raised money on the basis of replacing labor by cheaper AI. Not on the basis of being more safe then nebulous "others". They are not "safe" and do nothing to make world safer or better. > Founding a company on the basis you don't think the others are safe enough, raising capital on that basis, developing methods to improve AI safety, publishing literature about your methods, making open calls for legislation for…
> They raised money on the basis of replacing labor by cheaper AI. Not on the basis of being more safe then nebulous "others". They are not "safe" and do nothing to make world safer or better. Original founding says otherwise, for both OpenAI (famously) and Anthropic with this in a copy of their certificate of incorporation I found: ARTICLE III The specific public benefit that the Corporation will promote is to respo…
Growing business is super compatible with lying to make yourself sound better to investors. How is this one an argument? It is not even a conspiracy, just a normal CEO behavior at this point.
Also, what safety testing seriously? It is not like Chinese models were more unsafe in any realistic way.
And it is not like there wpuld be any real attempts to make humanity better.
I dont kmow what you are on about offline AI and someone not keeping corporate secrets. Or antropomorphised ai with conscoiusness hiring layer by proxy.
Who cares?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The framing distillation 'attacks' is a propaganda psyop.
I think it is a reasonable term to use in the context of adversarial AI development. Does that mean I am getting paid by the CIA or something?
Distillation is neither an 'attack', nor 'adversarial' in any reasonable sense.
> Does that mean I am getting paid by the CIA or something
It at the very least means you're uncritically parroting the framing of a company that'd like nothing more than to successfully persuade lawmakers that something should be done about open Chinese models (eliminate choice), preferably so that Anthropic is close to anyone's only option.