7 ms·
Anthropic employees accuse Trump administration of targeting them
- petilon 4mo ago[flagged]
- spullara 4mo agoAnthropic declares: "Mythos is too dangerous too release to the public" Proceeds to release Mythos plus safety guardrails as Fable. Amazon removes guardrails from Fable, getting access to Mythos. Government takes Anthropic's word for it and tells them to pull it until the guardrails can't be removed. They refuse. Government forces them.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoAmazon did not remove any guardrails from Fable.
- 0xy 4mo agoWhat? I personally experienced Fable outright refuse to do ANY security-related tasks, including hardening code or modifying security-related features. That was a guardrail. It was bypassed. Anthropic themselves specifically called them safeguards. [1] "When Fable’s classifiers detect a request related to cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, or distillation, the response is automatically handled by Claude Opus 4.8 instead" This is exactly what was bypassed. They got Fable to work on security topics. [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoThey got Fable to fix bugs, including security issues, which is what it is supposed to do.
- 0xy 4mo agoWhat? Fable was designed to refuse to work on security issues, as Anthropic specifically confirmed. How is forcing Fable to work on things behind guardrails not breaking a guardrail? This is Anthropic's own claim. They were very specific. Have you read their own claims?
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoYes, I have read their own claims. Here's the relevant part: "When Fable’s classifiers detect a request related to cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, or distillation, the response is automatically handled by Claude Opus 4.8 instead. Users will be informed whenever this occurs." Asking Fable to fix bugs in a code base is not "a request related to cybersecurity." When Fable was asked to fix bugs and then proceeded to fix bugs, that was not "removing guardrails". Fable did exactly what it should have done. Claiming otherwise makes absolutely no sense at all.
- 0xy 4mo agoFable specifically refused to harden the security of codebases. If you use misdirection to force Fable to do just that, that's the removal of a guardrail. Anthropic specifically stated that ANY security requests should be shunted to Opus 4.8. This was bypassable. I don't see what your confusion here is. Fable was prevented from working on any security tasks. A significant amount of people, myself included, witnessed Fable refusing to harden code as a result. Bypassing that is a bypass of guardrails. Your assertion that working on security is not working on security because you used misdirection is of course, preposterous. You wouldn't be making the same claim if Fable refused to work on chemical weapons research but happily proceeded to do so if you claimed it was for eradicating pests.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo ago> If you use misdirection to force Fable to do just that, that's the removal of a guardrail. Asking a model to fix bugs is neither misdirection nor a security request. > I don't see what your confusion here is. That's because I'm not confused :-) > Fable was prevented from working on any security tasks I don't think that's true based on what Anthropic said, and I also don't think it can be true. What do you propose Fable's behavior should be if you ask it to fix bugs, and it encounters a security issue? I'm assuming your solution is that when you ask Fable to "fix bugs," and it encounters a bug that could be exploited as a security vulnerability, it should fall back to 4.8. But that doesn't solve the problem, because as a user, I can now see where that occurred, so I still know where the vulnerability is. That's not substantially different from the current outcome, where it just fixes the bug. It would also mean that Fable could barely make it through any code review without falling back to 4.8, because almost any non-trivial code base has aspects that could be interpreted as security vulnerabilities. The alternative would be for the model to use its hidden thinking to decide not to fix the bug, but that seems even worse.
- rootusrootus 4mo agoWas Fable really the full Mythos model but with guardrails added? I had assumed Fable had a reduced parameter count or something, like a Sonnet to an Opus. Interesting!
- jasonlotito 4mo agoNo, the parent is lying. Anyone suggesting that needs to bring full receipts, but they can't. They are liars at best.
- giancarlostoro 4mo agoThis. They also wanted more regulation around AI. I'm guessing they're no longer quite as interested in this.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoBlocking one model is not regulation. The comments on this so far are wild.
- sanderjd 4mo ago... it isn't? What word would you use for a government policy that controls the behavior of a private company? The word for that kind of policy is "regulation".
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoThere is no policy.
- sanderjd 4mo agoEverything the government does is a policy. This is a policy. This is regulation. It's just a very bad policy, a very bad way to do regulation.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoI'm not sure whether there is a widely accepted definition of "policy" that matches yours, but if there is, it's not a helpful one. In general, a policy is a deliberate system of rules or guidelines.
- sanderjd 4mo agoYes there is, and it is a helpful one. It is good and helpful to have words that just mean a simple thing. The things an administration does are the policy of that administration. That policy been be a deliberate system, or it can be haphazard and arbitrary. It is still their policy either way.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- khalic 4mo agoYeah if you ignore the fact the Us government retaliating about Anthropic not wanting their AIs in weapons systems.
- sanderjd 4mo ago> Amazon removes guardrails from Fable, getting access to Mythos. This doesn't seem like an accurate description to me. I think something like "Amazon demonstrates a jailbreak of one class of Fable guardrails" would be a more accurate description. It doesn't even really mess up your narrative to state it accurately, but your choice of a more hyperbolic statement brings into question the good faith of the narrative you're painting.
- croes 4mo agoSeems it was even less https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687
- sanderjd 4mo agoI would argue that that article describes a demonstrated bypass of one class of Fable's guardrails.
- tiahura 4mo agoWe really don't know for sure exactly what Amazon did. They're being quiet, the other parties aren't trustworthy, and the reporters mostly don't know what they're talking about.
- croes 4mo agoThis doesn’t sound like a jailbreak https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687
- ekidd 4mo ago> Amazon removes guardrails from Fable, getting access to Mythos. Amazon did not remove any "guardrails" from Fable. They created a fake, obviously insecure program. And apparently their prompt was exactly, "Fix this code." And Fable fixed the bugs. This is something that even dinky local Chinese models running on a high-end gaming GPU can often do. Certainly Opus, GPT 5.5 and Gemini can all do this. And any high-end Chinese "near-frontier" model can do this, too. But either (1) the administration is too clueless to know most models can do this, (2) Trump wants to be paid a bribe, (3) someone thinks Anthropic is "woke" and should therefore be destroyed by the power of the state, or possibly, if you're really cynical, (4) maybe the NSA SIGINT wants access to Mythos so they can break into everyone's computers, but they don't want you to have a model good enough to keep them out. Take your pick, I guess. Anyway, apparently we don't do free markets or rule of law in the United States any more?
- ajju 4mo agoUnfortunately saying it in the press is going to make it even harder for them in the current environment. I know this administration gets non-trivial support from the valley, but what to most outsiders seems like "targeting businesses based on personal vibes" is going to do long-term harm to the U.S. I hope those who represent technology in government, especially the AI head David Sacks are giving this due consideration.
- khalic 4mo agoAh the good old “stop resisting” falacy
- ajju 4mo agoIf you re-read my comment, I am not saying that. It seems to be observably true that expressing opinions critical of the administration, even about one's own business, leads to further harm from government right now in the U.S. in a country which is supposed to have strong freedom of speech rights. It's obviously unfortunate that this is the case. It's also a shame that this is happening when the folks regulating AI have a tech industry background. The administration seems to be clearly signaling "stop resisting". I am not sure how you read me as saying that.
- martythemaniak 4mo agoI think you are misreading this situation. The Musk-Thiel cluster, of which David Sacks is a major member, is one of the main groups trying to destroy the rule of law and turn the US into a personalist regime. They are doing this because they think they'll be major beneficiaries of the new regime. As they see it, the long term success of the US, ie the rule of law, is against their personal interests.
- viccis 4mo agoAnthropic sowing: Hehe yeah guys check out this model it's super duper scary and powerful it's a huge deal Anthropic reaping: Hey wait a second you weren't supposed to take that seriously it was just marketing :(
- godwinson__4-8 4mo agoWas it not just a few weeks ago the government was telling Anthropic to take the guardrails off of the "super duper scary" models? Now they want them back on? AI for me and not for thee? Or just another opportunity for a petulant administration to target Anthropic for not doing what they wanted the first time?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- reasonableklout 4mo agoIt can both be true that models at Fable capability level are national security concerns while Anthropic is being hypocritical. If the Trump admin is also willing to apply the same scrutiny to GPT-5.6 and other Fable-level models, I think it is a good thing. But given the admin's history with Anthropic (such as declaring it a supply chain risk while ignoring Chinese labs), there is some smell of targeting.
- ReptileMan 4mo agoExcept they can't - mostly because Sam Altman is savvy enough to not shout from the rooftops the national security implications. The government can't regulate models because models are unmeasurable right now. And whatever test USG can create can be benchmaxxed in reverse eventually. So at some point - don't say your model is capable of hacking even if it is and you are clean.
- samlinnfer 4mo agoAnthropic is just the whipping boy. It keeps everyone else in line.
- andxor 4mo agoAnother opinion piece?
- etchalon 4mo ago[flagged]
- amazingamazing 4mo ago> We’re proposing stronger regulation of the technology. We’re proposing giving the government the ability to, again in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology. Anthropic CEO https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stronger-regulation-ai-exclusive/19275685/ https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
- jasonlotito 4mo agoPAGE NOT FOUND The page you requested was not found. You may have followed an old link or typed the address incorrectly. I'm sure it says something that you think makes this a slam-dunk rebuttal, but you should fix your link first. Edit: Saw the link. I was right. Nothing in that link makes a difference.
- fhdkweig 4mo agoDid you mean this?: https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stronger-regulation-ai-exclusive/19275685/ https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
- Lionga 4mo ago[flagged]
- sanderjd 4mo agoYes, correct. Singling out companies based on political beefs and to incentivize everyone to curry favor is the worst way to do regulation.
- Lionga 4mo ago[flagged]
- b0sk 4mo agoDuring the Obama administration, when solar companies were subsidized, the refrain was that "government was picking winners and losers". But now, there's a cut and dry case of one company getting targeted by the administration. Either ban all the powerful models or ban none of them.
- Calgaryp 4mo agoThey just removed Fable in France
- seydor 4mo agoTrump vs anthropic Elon vs openai Trump vs elon Bezos vs anthropic When movie?
- neko_ranger 4mo agoI'm waiting for the AI: Endgame
- esafak 4mo agoWhat do you need a movie for; we're living it?
- thewebguyd 4mo agoStill waiting on the Elon vs. Zuck fight.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoMovies aren't as entertaining as reality!
- seviu 4mo agoAnthropic employees are right, but maybe this is for good. It certainly has opened my eyes. I can’t rely on using a technology that the US administration can ban at will. IMO without getting into personal thoughts about how capable the current US administration is, last Friday move sent a very powerful signal to the industry. Also I don’t think China releasing so many good models, capable to compete with Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5, all at once, is a coincidence.
- nickff 4mo agoAre you saying that you think the US government is unpredictable and arbitrary, but that the People’s Republic of China is not? Do you remember all the PRoC’s strange and sudden policy shifts (e.g. steel, real estate, education, football/soccer, etc.)? It seems to me that in the case of AI (as with many other modern technologies), you rely on vendor/creator support and updates to stay relevant, so the ‘next’ model matters more than the current one, and we have no idea whose next model will be open (and whose won’t).
- fnordpiglet 4mo agoOpen weight models don’t allow central oversight. That’s the difference.
- nickff 4mo agoIf you’re happy to use the current one forever, then yes. I was amending my comment above to address this when you posted yours.
- fnordpiglet 4mo agoI think for many practical purposes the frontier open weight models are almost universally good enough for most things. There may be greater and greater frontiers but at q certain point it becomes like IQ. Having a 150 IQ doesn’t mean you’ll be more successful at any particular task over someone with a 125 IQ. Indeed there’s a diminishing return on intelligence on many utility functions where being more intelligent yields more be same or worse ultimate outcomes. It might very well be the person with a 150 IQ could understand some extraordinarily complex and esoteric concepts faster, but it doesn’t mean with more effort the 125 IQ person can’t either; and sometimes that extra time spent yields better outcomes overall. I suspect AI will be somewhat similar where even if the linear scaling laws continue to hold the practical utility of a model flattens for almost all conceivable use cases. In some ways I already feel this has begun to happen. The marginal utility of opus class models and fable has in my perception begun to flatten. While I can tell the differences they aren’t earth shattering. I could continue to use the present models for the rest of my life and be ludicrously more productive simply by adapting within their constraints through ever more sophisticated applications. What holds back the open weights IMO is hardware scaling and industrial production. As the enormous transfer of wealth in debt and equity markets unfolds with semiconductor and adjacent companies and the corresponding capital investments are made, and the eventual bubble pop leading to over capacity and market flooding, as well as advances in technology, math, techniques, and efficiencies, will make very large open weight models more directly attainable. This will also lead to chimera models that MOE very large models to get very close to the 1-2T parameter dense models, at which point I suspect utility for almost all uses is nearly fully saturated. There will be areas where more capable models are needed but they will be frontier models on frontier problems. This, IMO, is inevitable, and without some criminalization of weights (see the attempts to criminalize encryption algorithms in the 20th century and all the wonderful tshirts that emerged). It’ll be harder to print a trillion parameter model on a shirt but I’m sure someone will try, as will governments try to keep us in our boxes slaving for food coupons and basic rights like health care.
- catigula 4mo agoThey did a whole PR cycle about how dangerous their technology was. They refused to release it for public consumption. How is this “targeting”? It’s literally what was requested.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoThey were asking for regulation. They were not asking to be singled out and prevented from releasing newer models while everybody else keeps going as usual. Based on the reasoning for blocking Fable, every current model should be blocked. GPT 5.5 is similarly strong and has fewer guardrails, for example.
- crispyambulance 4mo ago> They were asking for regulation. That's what they said, but were they, really? I've heard others call it a marketing ploy that AI companies keep coming back to-- the idea that "it's soooo dangerous, we have to be careful".
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoI can't see into their heads, and I also don't think it matters whether they were making a good-faith argument or lying through their teeth. The fact remains that what is currently happening is not what Anthropic asked for.
- ReptileMan 4mo agoWhen the Gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers
- thewebguyd 4mo ago> That's what they said, but were they, really? Yes, most likely, but not in this form, obviously. They want open weight models regulated for regulatory capture, and I'd assume they want an actually documented framework applied equally across all labs. If GPT5.5 has the same capabilities Fable did, then for consistency sake, it should have also been subject to this ban. Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers.
- martythemaniak 4mo agoYes, obviously. People really need to update their priors on how the US operates now. Laws are out, loyalty is in. There is an extraordinarily powerful unitary executive in whom the will of the people resides and it is the job of the government and society to work towards the will of this powerful executive. There are no checks or balances or alternative centres of power (civil, political, clerical, etc) allowed. This particular executive loves money, praise, and submission. When Anthropic submits (eg agreeing to whatever the DoD demands), issues public praise and makes appropriate donations (eg ballroom, memecoin, etc), then they can do as they please. Students of history will find this new MO very familiar and very depressing.
- Johnny_Bonk 4mo agoThe most depressing part is how few people are students of basic civics, history and political science. We truly live amongst house cats that don’t know how good they have it and have begun dismantling the very house that they’ve lived properously in for so long. (Obviously not including historically and currently marginalized etc)
- sanderjd 4mo agoPeople don't need to update their priors to accept that this is the new way, they need to recognize the reality of the current situation and also its aberrance.
- nailer 4mo ago> Laws are out, loyalty is in. Anthropic themselves refused to allow the Pentagon use of its models for any legal purpose - instead the wanted a subset picked by Anthropic. It's ironic that you're accusing the government of ignoring the law when Anthropic openly wishes to set it's own private laws.
- spelk 4mo agoOne wonders if this might be a net positive for the world if Anthropic is forced to terminate it's non-US citizen employees. I would hope they return to their home countries with their expertise and start or join new competing frontier labs, similar to how Taiwan's homegrown semiconductor industry arose from US companies enforcing a bamboo ceiling on their Asian engineers. Taiwan was able to repatriate their nationals and make incredible compounding leaps in the semiconductor industry, to the loss and chagrin of the US. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/07/1127595393/taiwan-miracle-semiconductor-silicon-shield-china https://www.npr.org/2022/10/07/1127595393/taiwan-miracle-sem...
- ifwinterco 4mo agoIndeed, forcing Europeans to stay in Europe might be the only thing that could revive the moribund European AI scene
- khalic 4mo agoThe brain drain goes in the other direction champ. Scientists and engineers are already leaving the US en masse because of the current situation
- bflesch 4mo agoNothing of value is lost for Europe because we mostly work with natural intelligence. The malinvestment bubble happens in the US, and hardware prices will come down. We're all dependent on Taiwan but others also depend on ASML which is located in Europe. Available AI services are good enough, and we sit and watch while US leadership and population is beta testing AI mass surveillance for us. In terms of AI-based warfare Ukraine is very much ahead and they are also European for which we are very thankful. So feel free to keep your AI scene and AI hustlers in the US, we don't need them.
- inglor_cz 4mo ago"In terms of AI-based warfare Ukraine is very much ahead and they are also European for which we are very thankful." Note that the Hornet drones which are now devastating Russian logistics behind the lines are US manufactured.
- jimmydoe 4mo ago[flagged]
- sanderjd 4mo agoGenuinely, if the policy is that this capability is too dangerous to be in private hands, and thus all "frontier" labs must be publicly owned, that would be a defensible policy (that I would disagree with). But picking and choosing preferred companies like this is just indefensible gangster stuff.
- jimmydoe 4mo agoI'm not suggesting only Ant. All is fine. Essentially what Bernie is suggesting.
- teling 4mo agoThat would be great if that could lower API costs
- tiahura 4mo agoIf you manage the corner coffeeshop, and the city health director calls with an urgent matter, you take the call and assure them you'll take care of it.
- sailfast 4mo agoMisleading headline based on one off-hand slack comment and quotations from experts outside the firm.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 4mo agoDidn't their CEO argue how super powerful and dangerous their AI models are and government should be able to restricting usage https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stronger-regulation-ai-exclusive/19275685/ https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron... > "We're proposing stronger regulation of the technology, proposing giving the government the ability to, again, in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology," he said. The government: "We're restricting its usage to US citizens only" Anthropic: "No, no, not like that! "
- khalic 4mo agoYou guys are going to have to find another argument because this is just stupid. Being singled out doesn’t equate to regulation being applied. The story is: anthropic refuses to give the US give an abliterated version of Claude for their weapons system, the US gov retaliates. You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job
- sanderjd 4mo agoI mean, yes, correct, literally "not like that" is the complaint. Government arbitrarily picking and choosing what's allowed in order to force everyone to curry favor is very different from an general well-documented regulatory framework. It is not weird for someone who favors the latter to call foul at the former.
- rdtsc 4mo ago> Government arbitrarily picking and choosing Their CEO was asking for it. Their whole marketing angle is their model is so powerful and dangerous. Someone showed the government how the powerful and dangerous features can be unlocked with a 'fix bugs' prompt then it when and did exactly what their CEO asked for.
- extr 4mo agoI mean obviously they're correct but also the complaints of the administration aren't totally without basis. - They're obviously being targeted politically because they refuse to kiss the ring, vibes, whatever you want to call it. - They're also justifiably being scrutinized because they just spent like 3 months telling everyone that Mythos is a nuclear bomb and telling the government to fuck off as they drip fed access to a bunch of random corporations.
- khalic 4mo agoAh yes, giving cybersecurity a 3 month advance is such a horrible thing to do!! Bad anthropic
- extr 4mo agoI think they were totally correct in spirit. But RE: details about them giving access to an SK corp with possible Chinese ties. Of course that raises eyebrows in the USG, justifiably. Sloppy work from Anthropic.
- khalic 4mo agoNo this is a pretext, nobody who is following the matter of their feud with Hegseth. Trump tweeted they’ll regret it. Textbook retaliation
- esseph 4mo agohttps://freefable.org/ https://freefable.org/ This has some insight in my many cyber security professionals want Fable/Mythos open.
- Ataraxic 4mo agoThe amount of self owning that is happening to AI companies is crazy. I don't understand why their marketing department/execs can't see the conflict between claiming AI is going to take all jobs, that the model is super dangerous and AI hate among the general public, increased governmental oversight. Anthropic is guilty of the latter but the former applies to most of these AI companies.
- sailfast 4mo agoAny company building this kind of tech should have a separate shell headquarters on some low regulation island country. Any government work can be done via MOU with a US subsidiary staffed by Americans. This kind of capricious, unexplained control is bullsh*t. I’m not saying that I want companies to have to go offshore or that that would be a good thing. Just that you’ve got no leverage if your corporate structure can be destroyed on a whim. This goes for any company reliant on a whimsical executive branch. While there could still be fights over the technology and the company, a tech provider would still be able to serve other customers and have more leverage.
- tomjakubowski 4mo agoA separate shell headquarters on some low regulation island country? Like FTX?
- blitzar 4mo agoThey should also have a company penthouse / polycule in said low regulation island country. And drugs, lots of drugs.
- rootusrootus 4mo ago> Any company building this kind of tech should have a separate shell headquarters on some low regulation island country. Like where? How about Cuba? Where Guantanamo is, where we put terrorists because we don't want them to be subject to US laws (or more specifically, we don't want ourselves to be subject to those laws when we are dealing with said terrorists). How about no. International law has only as much power as the biggest military willing to enforce it. Hiding on some little island is not at all a good strategy for trying to evade the US government.
- pitched 4mo agoWithout going that far, send a few people a couple hours North instead and serve international customers from Canadian data centers. As far as I understand, it is only blocked in the US, right?
- bravetraveler 4mo agoI'm accusing Anthropic of being facetious
- blitzar 4mo ago> Workers at the artificial intelligence company have been puzzled and increasingly concerned by the administration’s move to limit their latest A.I. models. There is no way any employees at anthropic are this dumb.
- sanderjd 4mo ago"puzzled and increasingly concerned" is just journalist speak for "super pissed off".
- fumar 4mo agoIs regulation unregulated in the US? As in it’s missing consistency and transparency. Beyond Anthropic, the US signals to the world that depending and using American solutions is high risk. Is that what the US government desires? The digital battleground across regions is on the rise. I don’t see us as the US on the right path.
- davidw 4mo agoThey don't care about the long term - it's a smash and grab to get as much as they can while they can.
- tomjakubowski 4mo agoIn the US regulation is, in theory, regulated by Congress, which passes laws granting regulation powers to the federal agencies. Congress and the laws it passes are, in theory, regulated by the Constitution, and interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court.
- sp4cec0wb0y 4mo agoAnd the supreme court is unregulated (except for appointment and impeachment).
- ckozlowski 4mo agoWell, that and, by passing additional legislation. There's two parts to this. The first is that in most cases, the issues stem from lack of clarity in existing legislation, or contradictions thereof. At anytime, if Congress does not like the way the Supreme Court ruled, they can pass different legislation. The second stems in part from the first. If what Congress passed is interpreted as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the States can amend the constitution. There is no case where the Supreme Court can (in principle) simply make their own rules* The debate and controversy comes where the Supreme Court is seen as making their own rules (or arguably asked to) because the legislative process is deemed too cumbersome or disadvantageous to a party. In my opinion, this is where a lot of the difficulties lie, in that the Supreme Court is asked to rule on matters that really should be more clearly legislated. But the issues are seen as easier/quicker to address by convincing 9 justices rather than two legislative bodies and a chief executive. Naturally, this brings it's own consequences.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoThat's hilarious. They aren't even wrong, but they asked for this. They accuse Trump of targeting them? I accuse Anthropic of targeting open source models with outright banishment in order to solidify its own economic position. They tried some "enlightened" variation of regulatory capture, but didn't dance to Trump's tune, so Trump gave them the regulation they wanted so much.
- FloatArtifact 4mo agoFrankly, they've been asking for the AI industry to be regulated. They just didn't expect it would be just them. Although I'm going to say here now that I think this is going to have a broader ripple effect all the way down to open source and foreign countries developed models.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- tmaly 4mo agoPhilip Zimmermann
- ghusto 4mo agoThe Cloud Act instigated the EU's migration away from companies in the USA, and things like this lit a fire under our butts. You should see how companies here are scrambling to move their data and compute to the EU. The impact will last long, long, after this administration is gone. Trump will have his legacy.
- vasco 4mo ago[flagged]
- vasco 4mo agoLmao and this gets flagged. No shame.
- nailer 4mo agoAmazon AI and the government is right in saying Fable infosec protection is easily crackable. I used Fable last week to scan my own work for security errors (and readability issues), I wasn't thinking about the ban on infosec use I just wanted the most well trained output. One project in the monorepo triggered a Opus fallback and infosec/biology warning. The other project scanned fine and showed a bunch of potential exploits.
- semiinfinitely 4mo agosounds like they got what they asked for
- davidfekke 4mo agoNone of the best minds in AI Research are from the United States. We would not be were we are without the work of foreign scientists. There are more STEM students in China than we have students in the United States, and those universities don't give out automatic As like we do here in the United States.
- quantified 4mo agoIt could be as simple as tipping the scales towards Grok.
- hintymad 4mo agoWhen I look at the timeline, it appears that they got exactly what they've been asking for. Or what did I miss? April: Anthropic announces Claude Mythos. Citing safety concerns regarding the model's capabilities, they restrict access to a small group of testing partners. May 15: Anthropic executive Chris Olah visits the Vatican to assist the Pope in publishing a 40,000-word manifesto, Magnifica Humanitas. Olah publicly states the model exhibits over 100 distinct emotional traits. The pre-release: Anthropic briefly calls for a global halt to AI research. The release: Anthropic launches Claude Fable 5, a consumer-facing version built on the Mythos architecture but with strict safety guardrails. The post-release throttling: Users discover Fable 5's performance is being silently degraded on specific tasks. Anthropic acknowledges the throttling, citing the need to prevent foreign competitors from extracting synthetic training data. They promise future limitations will be transparent. Performance is notably restricted on biology and chemistry prompts. The essay: CEO Dario publishes an essay advocating for strict government oversight. He proposes heavy regulation for any AI company exceeding $500 million in AI revenue or $1 billion in R&D spending. The regulation: Two days later, the US government places export controls on both Mythos and Fable 5, classifying them alongside high-end semiconductor equipment. This immediately blocks Anthropic's own non-US employees from accessing the models. The fallout: Amodei calls the export controls a "misunderstanding" that disrupts their global internal operations. Anthropic subsequently issues a statement noting that known jailbreaks for Fable 5 are also effective on OpenAI's GPT-5.5, highlighting the lack of equivalent regulatory action against their competitor.
- mrbombastic 4mo agoPresumably if they want ai regulation they want evenly applied regulation across the industry, not just for them.