4 ms·

Sounds like a thing they've said a dozen time so far about how their models are too scary. And a bad implementation of controls on top of that. But right now

Sounds like a thing they've said a dozen time so far about how their models are too scary. And a bad implementation of controls on top of that. But right now I want to focus on what one of the more recent comments pointed out. "cyber-capable"? "cyber activity"? What the hell is that. Use real words.

nerdsniper 9mo ago
I was wondering the same thing! Looked into it a bit, apparently 'cyber-capable' is defined by lawmakers in 10 USC § 398a: > The term “cyber capability” means a device or computer program, including any combination of software, firmware, or hardware, designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace. So apparently, OpenAI's response is written by and for an audience of lawyers / government wonks which differs greatly from the actual user-base who tend to be technical experts rather than policy nerds. Echoes of SOC2 being written by accountants, but advertised as if it's an audit of computer security.
- deaux 9mo ago
  No, this is incredibly naive. It's all about more biometrics and PII for sama [0]. Zero chance that Google (of all places) and Anthropic's lawyers would somehow take a wildly different stance, or as a company be that much chummier with US gov, than OpenAI. It has been more than a year since ClosedAI started gating API use behind Persona identity checks. At the time I was told by numerous HNers "soon all of them will". We're now many model releases later and not a single other LLM provider has implemented it. There's only one conclusion to draw, and it's not that they care more about what their lawyers are supposedly saying. It would be absurd anyway given that they well know how the current US Gov operates. Grok made a CP generator publically available on a platform with hundreds of millions of users, US Gov doesn't care. Understandable, given recent revelations they were almost surely actively using it themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
- Dylan16807 9mo ago
  > designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace So every networked program ever...?

nerdsniper 9mo ago

I was wondering the same thing! Looked into it a bit, apparently 'cyber-capable' is defined by lawmakers in 10 USC § 398a: > The term “cyber capability” means a device or computer program, including any combination of software, firmware, or hardware, designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace. So apparently, OpenAI's response is written by and for an audience of lawyers / government wonks which differs greatly from the actual user-base who tend to be technical experts rather than policy nerds. Echoes of SOC2 being written by accountants, but advertised as if it's an audit of computer security.

deaux 9mo ago
No, this is incredibly naive. It's all about more biometrics and PII for sama [0]. Zero chance that Google (of all places) and Anthropic's lawyers would somehow take a wildly different stance, or as a company be that much chummier with US gov, than OpenAI. It has been more than a year since ClosedAI started gating API use behind Persona identity checks. At the time I was told by numerous HNers "soon all of them will". We're now many model releases later and not a single other LLM provider has implemented it. There's only one conclusion to draw, and it's not that they care more about what their lawyers are supposedly saying. It would be absurd anyway given that they well know how the current US Gov operates. Grok made a CP generator publically available on a platform with hundreds of millions of users, US Gov doesn't care. Understandable, given recent revelations they were almost surely actively using it themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
Dylan16807 9mo ago
> designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace So every networked program ever...?