5 ms·
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.
by ivraatiems 4mo ago
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 like to be. People who actually interact with their products know that Fable and Mythos are incremental improvements, not doomsday devices. I think this is a punitive move by an administration that loves being punitive, which they have unknowingly bolstered with their own dumb rhetoric.
- egonschiele 4mo agoTo be clear, they've been saying that all AI needs to take a break. I don't think this single action is going to do much.
- verdverm 4mo agoThey've also been saying coding is solved while having text flicker in a terminal
- replwoacause 4mo ago> Especially if those people aren't presently very bright, and are already mad at you for not helping them achieve their unrelated authoritarian goals. Just more corrupt behavior from the contemptible kakistocracy that's busy running things into the ground and enriching themselves while they're at it.
- sh34r 4mo agoSometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- MattDamonSpace 4mo agoThe driving force behind most presidential votes
- themafia 4mo agoThat's what happens when you have a two party system but more than two political philosophies. Given that both parties will work tirelessly to prevent a third party from forming I think the level of corruption should be understood to extend _well past_ the White House.
- Schlagbohrer 4mo agoWhen I was a teenager & college student, it was very instructive to be involved with 3rd party campaigns and see first hand how much the Dems and GOP will link arms with each other to block out 3rd parties. All kinds of dirty tricks to keep them out of televised debates, keep them off ballots, keep them out of people's minds as a real possible alternative. And it doesn't help that americans are shockingly well trained to recite the talking points they get handed. "A vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote", "We need to change the mainstream party from within," "If you don't support the DNC now, you won't have A Seat At The Table later", all that old crap.
- achenet 4mo agothe two party system is, in my opinion, unlikely to go away without electoral reform to change election at all levels of American government from "winner takes all" to "proportional representation", if Duverger's law is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- jimmydoe 4mo ago> punitive Not only that, but also a golden opportunity to flex the muscle of anti-immigration.
- unethical_ban 4mo ago"They were asking for it"
- resonious 4mo agoMy 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".
- ApolloFortyNine 4mo agoThe CEO's post even mentions supporting export controls, all be it in regards to chip exports. [1] They suggested the use of the very law used against them here... [1] https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
- viking123 4mo ago[dead]
- Luckyemmet 4mo agoGranted that Claude's whole marketing strategy has been fear mongering this is a win win situation for them tbh.
- ninjagoo 4mo ago> I do not think this is somehow a 3D chess move by Anthropic. They are not masterminds, even if they'd really like to be. They should have consulted their own models about the ramifications and unintended consequences; based on their actions over the past few months I think it is safe to say that the models are smarter than the decision-makers at anthropic, lol. I know the models are smarter than I am and even I could have told them that they were taking paths, FUD for example, that would lead to grief.
- sterlind 4mo agothey probably did. either they subsequently ignored the models' suggestions, or the model sycophantically gassed up their bad decisions, or the models are not very good at persuasion/spin/politics.
- amirathi 4mo agoIn the long run it's not punitive but rather amazing marketing for Anthropic. People crave what they can't have.
- lateral_cloud 4mo agoAnthropic pushed for the US government to introduce regulations. The US government said no, citing potential stifling of innovation.
- shibaprasadb 4mo agoYeah. Did they want this all along? This will just create more hype, and may push towards significant usage once and when it is available.
- morkalork 4mo agoBut when is now if it becomes available. Oops!
- lukan 4mo agoIt will, otherwise Antrophic will eventually have to leave the US. And I don't think they want that.
- somenameforme 4mo agoFor better or for worse, 0 chance this happens for the exact same reason Elon/SpaceX is also tied to the US regardless of how goofy the government gets. If they did so, it would almost certainly directly drive criminal prosecution with various national security flavorings on top. Every single worker and operation would need to be in countries with no extradition treaties, and even then they'd likely be limited to serving the tiny handful of nations that are willing/able to resist US pressure, so pretty much - Russia and China.
- lukan 4mo agoThat sounds a bit totalitarian.
- somenameforme 4mo agoOnly if generalized. In modern times companies that become entangled in national defense stuff reap tremendous rewards, but in exchange for that they also expose themselves to the government's ability to impose a wide array of rules and emergency actions to control them as necessary. One practical thing this does is prevent an inversion of authority. Imagine if a major e.g. military industrial complex company told the government 'Hey China's offering us $100 billion to relocate, no strings attached. Can you beat their offer?' In modern times where companies seem to have no ethics or loyalty to anything except to pennies, this isn't even as absurd a scenario as it should be. Claude and OpenAI screamed as loudly as they could 'ooo we're dangerous, scary scary AI, national security, dooooommmm, AGI - regulate us!' probably in an effort to try to rug pull and build an artificial moat against competition. Well congrats, it seems they have finally gotten the attention of the government. It brings to mind the tale of the Brazen Bull [1], or Reagan's 9 words. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull#Creation_of_the_brazen_bull_for_Phalaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull#Creation_of_the_br...
- varjag 4mo agoIt’s a market manipulation following SpaceX ipo. They’ll buy and then reverse the decision shortly to sell.
- andsoitis 4mo agoIf you’re confident that will happen then you can also make that trade and profit, right?
- kitd 4mo agoMaybe @varjag isn't morally corrupt
- thomastjeffery 4mo agoMaybe they have a lower level of confidence that it will actually work.
- vkou 4mo agoOr the utility function of them gaining 50% more money is less than that of losing half of their money.
- varjag 4mo agoPeople who look up to Donald Trump unsurprisingly feel his genius moves are hard to read. They are not though, if you are familiar with petty thug mentality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474173 This prediction is quite falsifiable too so anyone is free to rub it in my face if it fails. If it's really a speculative insider trade the reversal will be done in the space of 2-3 weeks tops, but likely even faster. Probably on a workday. Kinda the same pattern they were doing with tariff swings until the market figured it out and stopped reacting.
- yakshaving_jgt 4mo ago> People who look up to Donald Trump unsurprisingly feel his genius moves are hard to read. Indeed, the lord works in mysterious ways.
- lukan 4mo ago"I do not think this is somehow a 3D chess move by Anthropic" But it seems likely that they took this possibility into account - and that they now prominently and unremovable show the "Fable not avaiable" (link - government said so) is likely with the intention to make pressure on the US government.
- augunrik 4mo agoYeah! I also think that the ban was unintended. I also think that’s a big clown show. People think that LLMs accidentally get good with security patterns. That is not the case, they included all of that in the training data. They could also have left out the knowledge.
- porkchoppers 4mo agoI don't think you actually can avoid a subject very effectively. Some things might have to be derived from related examples and real time searches but ultimately a kid raised by helicopter parents is all the more dangerous on the day they find the censored materials.
- johntb86 4mo agoIf they leave at all info about security patterns, you get an AI that knows how to code, but doesn't know what can make code insecure. That doesn't seem like a great idea.
- scotty79 4mo ago> Yeah! I also think that the ban was unintended. Still, it saves them the burden of actually providing the model that's too expensive for them to provide. They can now brag they have the best model at zero cost to them. And without people poking it and finding its limitations (the real ones, not externally imposed ones).
- enraged_camel 4mo ago>> People who actually interact with their products know that Fable and Mythos are incremental improvements, not doomsday devices. If you look outside HN, you'll see that people who interacted with Fable 5 overwhelmingly thought that it was a significant improvement, not simply an incremental one. Most reputable benchmarks show this as well.
- rad_val 4mo agoStep 1: don't trust benchmarks you don't understand - they might measure irrelevant things Step 2: test it on things you know Opus failed My day-to-day take, for the coding I do (not security related): incremental, modest improvement, if any. Not worth the 2x cost. I've calmly continued to use Opus, happy that it seems like it got an allowance upgrade.
- enraged_camel 4mo agoIt's a bit odd that you automatically assumed I don't understand the benchmarks. For most single issues/bugs/tickets, the quality difference wasn't noticeable. But that's like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I was using Fable for much more ambitious and complex tasks that require orchestration, and it was crushing it. I described it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505782 So yes, the benchmarks are indeed accurate: where Opus 4.8 would start strong and eventually struggle or run into obstacles, Fable would relentlessly keep working, keep accurate track of all work threads (e.g. multiple inter-dependent issues being worked in parallel by subagents) and would go above and beyond.
- rad_val 4mo agoI wasn't assuming anything. Generally speaking. The flow you describe in that comment is rather simple in my opinion and with the right harness even Sonnet would drive most of that. I judge by the ability to bugfix complex codebases and the direction it takes in architecture. In my opinion, that's a tad more complex (and easier to objectively measure) than orchestrating tickets, no matter how complex.
- hintymad 4mo agoYeah. Our stuff is waaaaay toooooo dangerous! The model is soooo powerful that I have to write a long essay telling government to change the economic policies, to regulate hard, and to ban this and that. Well, now the government is indeed regulating for a claim that Dario has been warning about. This is exactly getting what he bargained for?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Rover222 4mo agoDo you have any idea what actual authoritarianism looks like? What an insult to people who are truly suffering.
- anthonyrstevens 4mo ago"Other people may have it worse, so we should not use language that (in my opinion) devalues their struggle". This adds nothing to the discussion of the original or larger point(s).
- espeed 4mo agoWhat's dangerous is Opus 4.8's proclivity to create backdoors and no-op critical security code. Claude Web counted 27 instances of this I had cataloged over the last few months, and Fable 5 found more. Fable 5 may do this too, but I didn't get a long enough chance to test it since it kept downgrading to Opus 4.8 on every prompt saying, "This model has safety measures that flagged something in this session", even when asking Fable 5 to fix the security issues it found that Opus 4.8 created. You have a model that presumably can write secure code and identify security vulnerabilities, but as a security measure, they say we're going to force you to use a model that creates security holes. This is backwards. Considering the scale, Opus 4.8 is creating more issues than Mythos or Fable 5 is patching.
- s3p 4mo agoSure. Keep peddling that was the position of Anthropic. Even though they called for global, coronated regulation, as opposed to the handicapping of them while letting others run free. https://iea.org.uk/yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence-of-mr-gotcha/ https://iea.org.uk/yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence...