3 ms·

Didn'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-

by rdtsc 4mo ago

Didn'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 ago
You 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
- rdtsc 4mo ago
  > You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job How did you figure that? Who are you talking about?
- christkv 4mo ago
  I hear this argument about the weapon a lot but it makes no sense. Sure for intelligence processing etc but what weapons system would an llm be a good match for.
sanderjd 4mo ago
I 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.
  - sanderjd 4mo ago
    And yet, "not like this" is still the correct conclusion to draw with respect to this kind of corrupt political favoritism.
    - rdtsc 4mo ago
      Where is the favoritism? Did other CEOs come out and say their models are crazy dangerous? Dario asked for this behavior and he got it. I guess he hoped to kneecap Deepseek or others. That's how companies operate, once they are big enough they want all the regulations because they know they can navigate them and others catching up may not be able to. Their own fear mongering around this demand backfired.
      - sanderjd 4mo ago
        Yes, everyone in the space has front loaded the concerns about the power of this technology. Dario did not "ask for" singling out by a gangster administration. I probably agree with you about regulatory capture, but just "we don't like you, you haven't licked our boots enough, so we're going to screw with you" is a totally different thing. It's a different thing that is new to the modern history of the US. It's not new in general, lots of governments have been corrupt in this same way throughout history. But that's bad, and we shouldn't adopt that approach in the United States. I agree that the fear mongering is bad, but that's a total pretext for what happened here.

by rdtsc 4mo ago

khalic 4mo ago

You 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

rdtsc 4mo ago
> You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job How did you figure that? Who are you talking about?
christkv 4mo ago
I hear this argument about the weapon a lot but it makes no sense. Sure for intelligence processing etc but what weapons system would an llm be a good match for.

sanderjd 4mo ago

I 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.
- sanderjd 4mo ago
  And yet, "not like this" is still the correct conclusion to draw with respect to this kind of corrupt political favoritism.
  - rdtsc 4mo ago
    Where is the favoritism? Did other CEOs come out and say their models are crazy dangerous? Dario asked for this behavior and he got it. I guess he hoped to kneecap Deepseek or others. That's how companies operate, once they are big enough they want all the regulations because they know they can navigate them and others catching up may not be able to. Their own fear mongering around this demand backfired.
    - sanderjd 4mo ago
      Yes, everyone in the space has front loaded the concerns about the power of this technology. Dario did not "ask for" singling out by a gangster administration. I probably agree with you about regulatory capture, but just "we don't like you, you haven't licked our boots enough, so we're going to screw with you" is a totally different thing. It's a different thing that is new to the modern history of the US. It's not new in general, lots of governments have been corrupt in this same way throughout history. But that's bad, and we shouldn't adopt that approach in the United States. I agree that the fear mongering is bad, but that's a total pretext for what happened here.