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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

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

#91

Post by ofjcihen »

slopinthebag wrote: post #86
tomhow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

My bad, I will do better. I know you guys are spread pretty thin managing the site, so I went through the comments for this post and collected some other comments which are also probably breaking site rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576183 https://news.ycombinator.com…

Genuinely hilarious reply.

On that note it would be interesting to do a sentiment analysis of flagged replies. They seem all over the place and it would be interesting to see if there were any biases.

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

#92

Post by ethbr1 »

dogleash wrote: post #64
ChadNauseam wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because it was the basis for the analogy: breed-based dog bans are idiotic, given mixed genetics, temperament, and training.

Said as the owner of a pitbull, who is the sweetest and gentlest dog I've owned. And I've had multiple labradors.

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

#94

Post by catigula »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #56
cmiles8 wrote: 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…

Sorry, this argument doesn't work. Anthropic claims Mythos is in a class of its own, the evidence corroborates this and the government believes it.

The government shot your pit bull because you were going around telling everyone who would listen that it was the most dangerous, viscous one on the cul de sac and you've trained it to kill people and they took you seriously.

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

#95

Post by claw-el »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #56
cmiles8 wrote: 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…

If the authorities see that you publicly and widely shout out that pitbulls are dangerous, but quietly tell me that you’ve spent a lot of effort training it not to be dangerous without sharing how in public, I think it is warranted for the authorities to be skeptical.

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

#96

Post by argee »

Terretta wrote: post #83
ChadNauseam wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why did curl only find one new vulnerability thanks to Mythos Maybe there weren't that many serious vulnerabilities in curl? It's like asking why it didn't find any vulnerabilities in fn main() {println!("hello, world");}. Anyway, people who have used it seem to say that Mythos was better than other models at creating exploits. From cloudflare https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyber-frontier-models/ > When we ran ot…

> Mythos was better than other models at creating exploits. Not a fan of this phrasing, prefer "discovering exploits". It makes it clearer the problem was already there, latent. Minor vocab diff, but important to better contextualize the present situation.

Exploits are created ("crafted" might be a better word), vulnerabilities are discovered. Unless you're hiding a RAT behind a public trigger in your code on purpose, I guess?

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

#97

Post by jubilanti »

cmiles8 wrote: 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.

Well it is reasonable to expect the bare minimum of due process, or you should be able to from a government that claims to be so committed to the rule of law.

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

#98

Post by gAI »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #82
gAI wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this hinges on a reading of SB 1047 that interpreted the full shutdown requirement as impossible for an open-weight LLM. But it looks like that was already addressed. Here's an analysis: >Clarifying the scope of a “full shutdown.” SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community. CalChamber explains: >Under SB 1047, developers must build “full shutdown…

> may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control Equivalent to a ban. Nobody is going to host or invest in this stuff if they suddenly become liable for everything it does. This is equivalent to repealing the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA.

>Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.

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

#99

Post by halJordan »

jubilanti wrote: post #97
cmiles8 wrote: 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.

Well it is reasonable to expect the bare minimum of due process, or you should be able to from a government that claims to be so committed to the rule of law.

National security laws often don't require such. It's easy to meet due process when the process is 0. Voters have no one to blame but themselves
Post reply on HN