891–900 of 1001 posts
> Warns users about how dangerous and powerful Mythos Preview is > Restricts model to large corporations > Release information about how Fable / Mythos 5 is stronger than Mythos Preview, give access to every user for a limited time via subscriptions > Users jailbreak model > U.S. suspends Fable / Mythos use Who didn't see this coming? I wonder what this means for the future of AI models. Either we'll see worse guardr…
So many comments here missing the big picture, and just gleefully pointing out that Anthropic got what they deserved, or that this is the natural culmination of some kind of marketing stunt. The real story here is that this may be the beginning of governments restricting the availability of strong LLMs to the public, to you. Fable was the strongest model on the market, and the US government has told you you can't use…
I don't necessarily disagree, but who is going to pay for improvements in models if they're not commercially available? Are AI companies going to become defence contractors with (US?) government paying for the training?
I don't know much it cost to go from AI model Foo 4 to Foo 5, but it's going to cost a pretty penny to eventually go to 6 and 7. These companies are doing so in the expectation of eventually charging customers to recoup the costs: if the only customer(s) is government(s) then the per-unit cost will be much higher. An analogy: you can get a 'civilian' toilet for USD 200, an FAA/EASA-approved toilet for airlines 2000, and a MILSPEC/NASA toilet for 20000.
Now this limited-customer model is certainly doable—tank manufacturers have a smaller base of customers than pickup truck manufacturers—but AI companies probably want regulatory clarity on what they're allowed to sell, and to whom, before they start developing new products/services.
What does jailbreaking have to do with nationality? So Americans can jailbreak it, but others can't? Sounds like they only want Americans to access SOTA AI.
When you spend a lot of time telling people how dangerous your products are, people who have the power to keep dangerous products off the market might listen. Especially if those people aren't presently very bright, and are already mad at you for not helping them achieve their unrelated authoritarian goals. I do not think this is somehow a 3D chess move by Anthropic. They are not masterminds, even if they'd really li…
My gut reaction was that it does look like a PR stunt. But indeed it might also be a blunder caused by all of their other PR stunts. "Our new stuff is soooo dangerous!!", followed by "The US government believed us and acted accordingly".
They suggested the use of the very law used against them here...
[1] https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
"small number", "previously known"+"minor"... they are trying hard to characterize this as harmless.
> These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.
Ah so now they are admitting that this is all about hype after all.
The way I see it, a government led by an adult toddler and his sycophants has decided to punish a firm that refused to cooperate with it's military when it was embarrassed by a militarily weak adversary. The model strength spin strikes me as motivated reasoning. The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technol…
HN is mostly bitter cynics that think they understand AI safety better than the people that actually work on it.
Listen - that's the sound of millions of companies and users doubling down on Chinese models. It might be a national security problem for other nations to have access to these models. But it's equally now a national security problem for any other nation to depend on them. Or US tech in general.
Which arm of the "US government"? What legal framework allows them to issue such a directive?