3 ms·

From the article: "We plan to make Astra available soon, but access to its most advanced cybersecurity capabilities will be more limited. Advanced cybersecurit

From the article: "We plan to make Astra available soon, but access to its most advanced cybersecurity capabilities will be more limited. Advanced cybersecurity work will initially be available to a group of testers, with access through Daybreak Blue following to expand defensive use." This, after several months of OpenAI and its boosters relentlessly criticizing Anthropic for withholding Mythos from the general public, is laughable. Sam, just three weeks ago, posted this tweet: https://x.com/sama/status/2085862292311396515 https://x.com/sama/status/2085862292311396515 In the tweet, he said: "we do not think it is a good strategy to keep powerful models to a chosen few." And yet here we are. I wonder if he will demonstrate good character and admit he was wrong.

matheusmoreira 25d ago
I'm happy to criticize both. Thank god the chinese are working overtime to undermine US hegemony.
- nradov 25d ago
  [flagged]
- villish 25d ago
  Should everyone have access to guns too? I ask because there seems to be a disconnect where a lot of people who live in countries with gun control don’t want AI offensive capabilities to be regulated. I presume your country doesn’t have AI sovereignty so no matter what you won’t have access to models aligned with your beliefs.
  - matheusmoreira 25d ago
    > Should everyone have access to guns too? Yes.
  - swiftcoder 25d ago
    > a lot of people who live in countries with gun control don’t want AI offensive capabilities to be regulated These are not really analogous: direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. Yes, they might be used to exploit a critical system, leading to loss of life, but that is a second-order effect at best. It's also not a new capability - LLMs may discover exploits faster, but cyberattacks against infrastructure targets were already a thing. Stuxnet is 20 years old...
    - noir_lord 24d ago
      > direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. For now, I would generally agree that it will remain low however the AI companies themselves are publically stating how capable/dangerous these models are (for whatever reason marketing/hype/upcoming IPO's, to keep the investments coming), if we take their statements at face value then prudence would suggest we stop training new ones and more fully examine the capabilities of what we've currently built. In reality, that's not going to happen, the competition between the US and China means there will be no unilateral pause, they'll both keeping rushing/pushing as fast as they can throwing caution to the wind while doing it. As a species though we've always done that, We just take a crowbar to Pandora's box and see what happens.
    - villish 24d ago
      > These are not really analogous: direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. I imagine an LLM with no safeguards and a psychopathic mind would be considerably more dangerous than a gun. I don’t mean only for hacking. Though everyone in the world suddenly having a pocket expert hacker should be taken seriously. I find it completely insane when people bash the labs for even considering safety. The entitlement is off the charts.
      - swiftcoder 24d ago
        > I imagine an LLM with no safeguards and a psychopathic mind would be considerably more dangerous than a gun Define the axis along which "more dangerous" is measured? If we are scoring on lethality, guns already score 100%, instantaneous death. If we are scoring on number of casualties, guns have already been used to cause mass-fatalities. Unless we are giving the LLM an armed drone, skynet-style, we're at best talking about indirect casualties (swatting, hacking street lights to provoke crashes, etc).
freedomben 25d ago
It might be political survivalism to avoid getting hammer-dropped by the admin
- sroussey 25d ago
  I bet they have to add something to say "Lake America" if asked or get export banned.

matheusmoreira 25d ago

I'm happy to criticize both. Thank god the chinese are working overtime to undermine US hegemony.

nradov 25d ago
[flagged]
villish 25d ago
Should everyone have access to guns too? I ask because there seems to be a disconnect where a lot of people who live in countries with gun control don’t want AI offensive capabilities to be regulated. I presume your country doesn’t have AI sovereignty so no matter what you won’t have access to models aligned with your beliefs.
- matheusmoreira 25d ago
  > Should everyone have access to guns too? Yes.
- swiftcoder 25d ago
  > a lot of people who live in countries with gun control don’t want AI offensive capabilities to be regulated These are not really analogous: direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. Yes, they might be used to exploit a critical system, leading to loss of life, but that is a second-order effect at best. It's also not a new capability - LLMs may discover exploits faster, but cyberattacks against infrastructure targets were already a thing. Stuxnet is 20 years old...
  - noir_lord 24d ago
    > direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. For now, I would generally agree that it will remain low however the AI companies themselves are publically stating how capable/dangerous these models are (for whatever reason marketing/hype/upcoming IPO's, to keep the investments coming), if we take their statements at face value then prudence would suggest we stop training new ones and more fully examine the capabilities of what we've currently built. In reality, that's not going to happen, the competition between the US and China means there will be no unilateral pause, they'll both keeping rushing/pushing as fast as they can throwing caution to the wind while doing it. As a species though we've always done that, We just take a crowbar to Pandora's box and see what happens.
  - villish 24d ago
    > These are not really analogous: direct lethality of LLMs is quite low. I imagine an LLM with no safeguards and a psychopathic mind would be considerably more dangerous than a gun. I don’t mean only for hacking. Though everyone in the world suddenly having a pocket expert hacker should be taken seriously. I find it completely insane when people bash the labs for even considering safety. The entitlement is off the charts.
    - swiftcoder 24d ago
      > I imagine an LLM with no safeguards and a psychopathic mind would be considerably more dangerous than a gun Define the axis along which "more dangerous" is measured? If we are scoring on lethality, guns already score 100%, instantaneous death. If we are scoring on number of casualties, guns have already been used to cause mass-fatalities. Unless we are giving the LLM an armed drone, skynet-style, we're at best talking about indirect casualties (swatting, hacking street lights to provoke crashes, etc).

freedomben 25d ago

It might be political survivalism to avoid getting hammer-dropped by the admin

sroussey 25d ago
I bet they have to add something to say "Lake America" if asked or get export banned.