2 ms·

They 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

They 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 ago
They 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      When 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.
    - crispyambulance 4mo ago
      > Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers. Indeed, it has been very clear since Jan 20 2025 that our executive branch of government is not a rational actor. I don't expect them to make the right decision about anything.
- ReptileMan 4mo ago
  I don't know. I have heard from reliable source - aka the CEO of antrhopic that Mythos is in league of its own. And that the rest are grossly inferior. Anthropic can't have it both ways. If they are special - only them should fall under regulations. If they are not - why have you committed fraud in the last couple of months right before your IPO saying otherwise.

They 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 ago

They 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    When 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.
  - crispyambulance 4mo ago
    > Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers. Indeed, it has been very clear since Jan 20 2025 that our executive branch of government is not a rational actor. I don't expect them to make the right decision about anything.
ReptileMan 4mo ago
I don't know. I have heard from reliable source - aka the CEO of antrhopic that Mythos is in league of its own. And that the rest are grossly inferior. Anthropic can't have it both ways. If they are special - only them should fall under regulations. If they are not - why have you committed fraud in the last couple of months right before your IPO saying otherwise.