3 ms·

Funny. Dario seems like the biggest snake in the industry to me and has leaned the hardest into doom marketing out of all of the influential leaders. With Altma

Funny. Dario seems like the biggest snake in the industry to me and has leaned the hardest into doom marketing out of all of the influential leaders. With Altman (or Google), it's a transaction, and that's something I can live with.

tyre 1mo ago
I just don’t see how people have looked at what has happened with Mythos and the deluge of fixes from companies, then come to this conclusion. He has a really hard job. He errs on the side of conservatism in releasing and then people get Really Mad. Safeguards on cybersecurity are not great for Anthropic revenue! As evidenced by people getting pissed, moving to Sol, and them having a smaller market for what Fable can do. It’s clearly bad for revenue and not great advertising to say, “you can’t use this but here is a nerfed version that will annoy you and not solve important problems.”
- SwellJoe 1mo ago
  Anthropic/Amodei have been the most alarmist about model safety, so multiple things can be true. A lot of tech companies avoided scrutiny by sending bribes to Trump (naked corruption is bad, I'd rather nobody do that), Anthropic didn't...so, combined with their fear-mongering about the danger of Mythos and open models (which seems aimed at regulatory capture) and the lack of bribes flowing to the Trump administration, they got stepped on by the federal government based on the excuse Anthropic provided. I dunno. Everybody seems to be playing pretty dirty. Some people have a much longer history of that, though. Obviously, Meta and Musk are outliers even in an industry full of problematic behavior.
  - felixgallo 1mo ago
    I don’t see how you can look at what happened with hugging face and keep up the facade of anyone being alarmist or faking it.
    - SwellJoe 1mo ago
      Security vulnerability capability is not the only thing they're scare-mongering about. They're the biggest purveyors of the, "We think the little guy in the computer who is made of algebra might be a real live boy and he might want to kill all of humanity when he grows up," line of alarmism.
      - felixgallo 29d ago
        That's ok to think at this point, given the trajectory of the last few years. Certainly it's one of those things where erring (marginally and slightly) on the side of being safe about it is better than the alternative.
        SwellJoe 29d ago
        I think where you and I disagree is on whether Anthropic is especially trustworthy on the "safety" front, more trustworthy than various other labs, especially those that produce open models, for example. I simply don't trust Amodei more than I trust, say, Liang Wenfeng. I'm not saying I trust any of them, particularly, I am saying that if a few billionaires have access to this technology, I want access to this technology. The tech billionaires have shown they'll use it for surveillance and control. Amodei is saying it is "safe" to let billionaires and fascist regimes use this tech, but not you and me. So, yes, LLMs have now proven to be extremely good at finding vulnerabilities. Where I disagree with Amodei is in who should have the ability to protect themselves from those capabilities with similarly powerful tools.
        felixgallo 29d ago
        I think you're mischaracterizing Anthropic uncharitably and lumping them in with other, less savory tech billionaires, and also not thinking through the nuances here. First, Amodei has taken an unusually strong stance among tech companies for not supplying fascist regimes with fascist tooling; in fact, even when threatened with being labeled a national security risk unless he bent the knee, he didn't. Compare and contrast with OpenAI who leapt at the opportunity to bend the knee, or obviously Elon Musk, etc., etc. When you say 'surveillance and control', that's exactly what got Anthropic labeled a national security supply chain risk: Anthropic's unwillingness to be used for that purpose. Second, it's not clear that giving everyone extremely powerful LLMs is a great idea yet. LLMs can be used for defense and finding vulnerabilities, but that same LLM can be used to create and exploit vulnerabilities, design new lethal weapons, and so on. The history of gun availability in America 'for our freedoms' demonstrates the kind of risk that should be responsibly considered before replicating. And again, there's nuance here; yes, we should not be subjugated by fascist states with sole control of a critical technology obviously; but also, do you trust the median maga 4channer to operate a Mythos-level model with a sense of civilizational responsibility and ethics? It's not an easy and obvious question and it's not as simplistic as your argument would suggest.
- adriand 1mo ago
  And he drew a red line wrt the Pentagon's use of Anthropic's models for autonomous weapons and surveillance of American citizens, and he stood by it, even when the government took steps to materially damage the company. This required true courage. Name me another CEO, of any major American company, that has demonstrated this much fortitude.
  - tbugrara 29d ago
    [flagged]
- codexon 1mo ago
  They are still offering full mythos to project glasswing companies and those that pay them enough.
  - unethical_ban 28d ago
    It isn't just about money, it's about who. I don't think the companies using it are using it to create botnets. The intention is for highly targeted pieces of software to use it to secure their code and be ahead of the game before the open market gets access to the same capabilities for offense.

tyre 1mo ago

I just don’t see how people have looked at what has happened with Mythos and the deluge of fixes from companies, then come to this conclusion. He has a really hard job. He errs on the side of conservatism in releasing and then people get Really Mad. Safeguards on cybersecurity are not great for Anthropic revenue! As evidenced by people getting pissed, moving to Sol, and them having a smaller market for what Fable can do. It’s clearly bad for revenue and not great advertising to say, “you can’t use this but here is a nerfed version that will annoy you and not solve important problems.”

SwellJoe 1mo ago
Anthropic/Amodei have been the most alarmist about model safety, so multiple things can be true. A lot of tech companies avoided scrutiny by sending bribes to Trump (naked corruption is bad, I'd rather nobody do that), Anthropic didn't...so, combined with their fear-mongering about the danger of Mythos and open models (which seems aimed at regulatory capture) and the lack of bribes flowing to the Trump administration, they got stepped on by the federal government based on the excuse Anthropic provided. I dunno. Everybody seems to be playing pretty dirty. Some people have a much longer history of that, though. Obviously, Meta and Musk are outliers even in an industry full of problematic behavior.
- felixgallo 1mo ago
  I don’t see how you can look at what happened with hugging face and keep up the facade of anyone being alarmist or faking it.
  - SwellJoe 1mo ago
    Security vulnerability capability is not the only thing they're scare-mongering about. They're the biggest purveyors of the, "We think the little guy in the computer who is made of algebra might be a real live boy and he might want to kill all of humanity when he grows up," line of alarmism.
    - felixgallo 29d ago
      That's ok to think at this point, given the trajectory of the last few years. Certainly it's one of those things where erring (marginally and slightly) on the side of being safe about it is better than the alternative.
      - SwellJoe 29d ago
        I think where you and I disagree is on whether Anthropic is especially trustworthy on the "safety" front, more trustworthy than various other labs, especially those that produce open models, for example. I simply don't trust Amodei more than I trust, say, Liang Wenfeng. I'm not saying I trust any of them, particularly, I am saying that if a few billionaires have access to this technology, I want access to this technology. The tech billionaires have shown they'll use it for surveillance and control. Amodei is saying it is "safe" to let billionaires and fascist regimes use this tech, but not you and me. So, yes, LLMs have now proven to be extremely good at finding vulnerabilities. Where I disagree with Amodei is in who should have the ability to protect themselves from those capabilities with similarly powerful tools.
        felixgallo 29d ago
        I think you're mischaracterizing Anthropic uncharitably and lumping them in with other, less savory tech billionaires, and also not thinking through the nuances here. First, Amodei has taken an unusually strong stance among tech companies for not supplying fascist regimes with fascist tooling; in fact, even when threatened with being labeled a national security risk unless he bent the knee, he didn't. Compare and contrast with OpenAI who leapt at the opportunity to bend the knee, or obviously Elon Musk, etc., etc. When you say 'surveillance and control', that's exactly what got Anthropic labeled a national security supply chain risk: Anthropic's unwillingness to be used for that purpose. Second, it's not clear that giving everyone extremely powerful LLMs is a great idea yet. LLMs can be used for defense and finding vulnerabilities, but that same LLM can be used to create and exploit vulnerabilities, design new lethal weapons, and so on. The history of gun availability in America 'for our freedoms' demonstrates the kind of risk that should be responsibly considered before replicating. And again, there's nuance here; yes, we should not be subjugated by fascist states with sole control of a critical technology obviously; but also, do you trust the median maga 4channer to operate a Mythos-level model with a sense of civilizational responsibility and ethics? It's not an easy and obvious question and it's not as simplistic as your argument would suggest.
adriand 1mo ago
And he drew a red line wrt the Pentagon's use of Anthropic's models for autonomous weapons and surveillance of American citizens, and he stood by it, even when the government took steps to materially damage the company. This required true courage. Name me another CEO, of any major American company, that has demonstrated this much fortitude.
- tbugrara 29d ago
  [flagged]
codexon 1mo ago
They are still offering full mythos to project glasswing companies and those that pay them enough.
- unethical_ban 28d ago
  It isn't just about money, it's about who. I don't think the companies using it are using it to create botnets. The intention is for highly targeted pieces of software to use it to secure their code and be ahead of the game before the open market gets access to the same capabilities for offense.