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

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#91

Post by slopinthebag »

jdw64 wrote: post #24

To speak my mind without filtering, Amodei looks pretty terrible in this situation. They've positioned their company as 'We're the serious AI company that understands safety, while others underestimate the risks.' That strategy itself is understandable. They're not like OpenAI, which carved out the pioneer position in LLMs, nor do they have a trustworthy brand like Google (Gemini isn't trustworthy, but still). So bra…

Well said. The funny thing is the US military uses Anthropic models for things like target selection in conflicts in the Middle East. Their marketing department is top notch however, there are people in this thread who think Anthropic is against that.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#92

Post by gerdesj »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #37
gerdesj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think my point still stands 8)

I know plenty of people who will put the letters A and I together and get rather confused about what on earth is going on but very few of those would mention any co apart from Microsoft, Google, Facebook or errm Twitter.

No one has a bloody clue about all this stuff apart from us lot and we have no real idea about it either!

Oooh tulips!

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#93

Post by tensility »

It's all interesting advertising / news; however, why does it have to constantly cost me five precious vertical lines of text worth of screen real estate in Claude Code that apparently can't be dismissed? FFS

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#94

Post by cdestroyer »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #19

I posted this comment on the other thread, but it deserves mention here too, because Anthropic also asked for this ~10 days ago, separately from the post linked in the article. https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme ... > We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep u…

the link appears to be broken. Only shows a 404 poem :(

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#95

Post by matheusmoreira »

bbippin wrote: post #79
ivraatiems wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m surprised people are reacting so strongly over this. Suppose there is a huge concern—would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks? I used Fable 5 for a fair amount of tasks before they pulled it and I can only imagine what an untapped version of that could do. It’s very capable and equally aggressive in accomplishing its goals.

> would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks?

Yes, because then we get to use SOTA models to defend against the exact same attacks. Fable detected issues in my projects but got downgraded back to Opus before it could tell me about them or fix them. In what world could that possibly be reasonable?

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#96

Post by CamperBob2 »

adriand wrote: post #12
CamperBob2 wrote: post #9

The Fable debacle will justify the imposition of a solid legislative framework to serve as a legal foundation for the entire business sector. A DMCA for AI, if you will. The other incumbent players will demand it, because they can't do business subject to the arbitrary (or worse) whims of Donald Trump or whoever follows him. That framework is, of course, what Amodei did ask for, but he mistakenly thought he'd have a…

I think you are correct about the legislative push, because it’s clear that US AI companies can no longer live without it. However, it is not the case that this is Amodei’s fault. His push for regulation was clearly at least partly mitigated by a desire for this precise situation to be avoided! With an appropriate regulatory framework and a transparent, apolitical certification or review process, this kind of situati…

Banning Fable is not “regulation”, it’s capricious retribution

Yes, and my point is, I can't imagine why Amodei expected anything different to happen.

If he wanted regulation, he should have asked Congress. But instead he waved a red cape in front of Trump.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#98

Post by dualvariable »

I tend to think this is all just PR and hype, baking in the idea that Fable/Mythos is so good that it attracted all these regulations and controls. So you need to spend >$20k per developer per month, or you'll fall behind. Don't try to get by on Opus, you need to really open that wallet up...

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#99

Post by matheusmoreira »

zmmmmm wrote: post #74

I think it's a near universal phenomenon that people with extraordinary amounts of power become victims of their own hubris. Once you get sufficiently decoupled from the consequences of your own actions, it is near impossible to tether yourself to a calibrated sense of reality. So I genuinely think that Amodei thought here that he was building a moat - set a very high bar for safety at exactly the line Anthropic but…

> I am sure they calculated in the possibility of their own model being restricted.

Doubt. Had they foreseen this, they would have started verifying the identity of their customers. That would have allowed them to keep their US customers when the US government banned foreign persons from accessing Fable. Since they were forced to turn off Fable for everyone, it follows that they were not prepared for that possibility at all.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#100

Post by SilverElfin »

lazide wrote: post #66
andai wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but hasn't OpenAI been doing the same thing for years? They seem to be on slightly better terms though...

OpenAI is happy to sell their device to the gov’t to blow things up with, Anthropic tried to tell the gov’t to pound sand, no blowing things up for you.

To be clear, Anthropic was completely okay with their tech being used in war, including current conflicts. They just wanted a human making some decisions. The military didn’t want a vendor giving them restrictions on how to operate a tool, and since Anthropic’s restrictions could be a problem anywhere they appear among other military vendors as well, the government used the supply chain risk designation to say “this can’t be anywhere in our tools”.
Post reply on HN