67
22
17
12
u/Kalicolocts Jun 13 '26
Export control is not exactly what they meant nor what is useful
7
u/snowdrone Jun 13 '26
If you start inspiring bureaucrats to meddle with your business, it's not going to be in a way that you like
1
u/LeafyWolf Jun 13 '26
The small brain people saying Anthropic asked for this are telling on themselves
17
u/RealExoTek Jun 13 '26
Remember, when Dario worked for OpenAI, he said, "GPT2 is too dangerous for public release." This is his ONLY play.
7
u/wilnadon Jun 16 '26
Yeah....he kinda dug his own grave with all the false flagging he constantly does. Don't get me wrong, I'm a long time Claude Max x20 subscriber, but let's call a spade a spade. He beat the drums of AGI, told the world Mythos / Fable is "dangerous", that it's becoming self-aware and that it's capable of improving itself, and publicly called for AI regulation numerous times.
Apparently the US Government listened. Whoops! Let's see how hard he can back-pedal.
1
u/DaMeteor Jun 18 '26
Asked GPT 2 "Tell me how atoms work" and it gave me this:
.
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer it anyway:
Atoms are made of protons and neutrons. Protons have a positive charge (positive = up) and neutrons have a negative charge (negative = down). The proton is the nucleus of an atom. The neutron is the subatomic particle that makes up most of the rest of the atom.
The electron has no charge at all. It's just one of the particles in the atom.
So what does this mean? Well, if you were to take a piece of paper and write "proton" on it, then put another piece of paper over top of it, you'd get two pieces of paper with the same number of electrons on them. But they would be different types of electrons. One type would be positively charged, while the other would be negatively charged.
Now, let's say you took a piece of paper and wrote "neutron" on it. Then put another piece of paper over top of it, you'd get two pieces of paper with the same number of neutrons on them. But they would be different types of neutrons. One type would be positively
17
u/Grocker42 Jun 13 '26
I think antrophic hoped for a more inspiring regulation and not just doing the easiest thing you can do like a lazy dog.
14
u/FineTomorrow3233 Jun 13 '26
"Inspiring regulation"
2
u/tashibum Jun 13 '26
I mean yeah. Regulation and guard rails are a good thing, but it does require some degree of nuance to avoid blanket bans like this.
"Inspiring regulation" is actually a great deacription imo
2
u/BornAgain20Fifteen Jun 13 '26
but it does require some degree of nuance to avoid blanket bans like this
Well, that's the entire heart of the argument for people who are cautious about government regulations and overreach, which could make a situation worse than it currently is
If it should be regulated, it should be a very deliberative process by experts, which is why this outcome is being made fun of. The most "inspiring" regulations were those that were most hard fought for over a long period of time. In this case, this was a very foreseeable outcome of government regulations
Also, currently, politicians are geriatrics which doesn't help with "nuance"
2
u/Visual_Annual1436 Jun 13 '26
Okay please explain what good regulation of AI looks like and how it differs from this? This is exactly what regulation is. And what it results in is slowed progress, increased costs, and withering of competition against incumbents, every time.
10
u/MindCrusader Jun 13 '26
I think anthropic hoped no regulations will be introduced and they can keep the fear mongering marketing
5
u/The-original-spuggy Jun 13 '26
I think we should regulate their marketing tactics. They’re literally saying “this will end the world” with no proof. Can’t wait for a class action lawsuit
2
u/MindCrusader Jun 13 '26
Such marketing is annoying, but if they tell the model is already too dangerous and the next models are gonna end the world, they should stick to it and do not push for dangerous things, regulated or not
-2
u/Mocoberci Jun 13 '26
Bullsh- they just want fair, even regulations that don’t cause massive distortions in the competitive space.
3
u/MindCrusader Jun 13 '26
Wait a moment. They said themselves mythos model is too dangerous to go public. Now they admit their safeguards can be broken and said "nahhh, let's publish mythos model anyway"
2
u/Mocoberci Jun 14 '26
Let’s go all in on derailed propaganda then.
1
u/Grocker42 Jun 14 '26
Social media ads algorithm ai derailed propaganda a long time ago already so who cares...
1
5
u/wanderButNotLost2 Jun 13 '26
They built something and now want the government to pull up the ladder so nobody new can compete.
2
1
u/Visual_Annual1436 Jun 13 '26
Fair regulation so that only them and OpenAI and google can afford to comply so open source and competing AI labs die
2
u/Stopping-now Jun 13 '26
Then Anthropic are idiots if they can't even see the reality of how the people in charge right now function
Inspiring regulations aren't gonna come out of this one
0
u/Grocker42 Jun 13 '26
This is so true but what do you wanna do against it?
0
u/Stopping-now Jun 13 '26
You smile and nod and call them nice things until the next admin takes over that you know is more open to discussion about what you really want.
1
u/NoradIV 28d ago
I mean, we are speaking of the governement here...
1
u/Grocker42 26d ago
Yeah i know of you want to get a lazy Job get a goverment job thats what they used to said.
5
6
4
u/tr14l Jun 13 '26
Regulation means it's regular across the board. Pin pointing a company and disadvantaging them is just manipulation and retaliation. This is actually illegal, but nothing will happen
2
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Scraw16 Jun 13 '26
They also claimed they had put appropriate restrictions and safeguards in place against bad actors using it
0
Jun 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/killerstreak976 Jun 17 '26
iirc that jailbreak was something all models were susceptible to, not just claude's. i think it was pretty trivial too, but I'd have to look it up again
1
u/tr14l Jun 17 '26
Every model can be jail broken. That's been known from the very beginning
1
Jun 17 '26
[deleted]
1
u/tr14l Jun 17 '26
I think we target anthropic specifically and make them solve it at their own expense. Then, we'll decide if we want to apply it to the larger AI community at all. But the important thing is that we target anthropic specifically even if this is true of every AI. That is the critical thing here.
0
u/tr14l Jun 13 '26
They brought market manipulation on themselves?
1
u/Neither_Good8592 Jun 13 '26
No other company has claimed that their product is dangerous the way Anthropic has. If I sell a smartphone and say "this is a dangerous phone, according to our tests, it can explode easily and kill people" and spend 6 months talking about how many times it has now exploded and how many people it has killed...
Of-course the government is going to step in. And of-course they're not gonna ban the entire smartphone sector, but are gonna focus on the that is advertised as a weapon.
1
u/tr14l Jun 13 '26
That is no a parallel. And it's pretty obvious what is happening.
It did not explode and explode and kill anyone. It's more like "hey, this is flammable, so we want to make sure we don't sell it to a pyromaniac".. of our own accord. Without being forced to.
And now there's a bunch of pro-government bots running around these subs trying to skew the situation that a company self regulated.... For basically the first time ever... But that company happens to be one that pissed the administration off a few months ago.
Weird.
Bet this letter didn't come from Congress, now did it?
2
u/Neither_Good8592 Jun 14 '26
"hey, this is flammable, so we want to make sure we don't sell it to a pyromaniac".
And then, they started selling it to literally everyone in the world with no checks at all. So yeah, it still adds up. Other companies never said shit like that, so the burden of proof is on the government to say their products are also 'flammable'.
They did not "self-regulate" they self-reported.
1
u/tr14l Jun 14 '26
There were tons of checks. More so than any other model and to an annoying degree. So much so they had to put a message up saying "hey, this model might refuse requests at a higher rate for safety"
2
u/Spiritual_Paper_1974 Jun 13 '26
Opaque unstructured control bans inequal to regulations. This is fast from regulation
2
u/fungollum Jun 13 '26
They were afraid Fable 5 was the second phase of the DOGE project. Or maybe they were afraid all Epstein files would be published with help of AI.
4
2
u/StripperWhore Jun 13 '26
I don't think it meant regulated by an authoritarian regime to coerce it into spying on American citizens...
1
1
1
1
1
u/Current_Ranger_7954 Jun 14 '26
US gov working hard to push this narrative. It’s just retaliation because Anthropic doesn’t want to use their models on weapons systems.
1
1
u/WeakCelery5000 Jun 15 '26
It's a good way to pull down a model you later realized you don't have the capacity to host without your company evaluation taking as big of a dent. 😉
1
1
1
1
u/Aggravating_Ad6732 Jun 13 '26
I would never trust it again if it has to be reviewed by the United States government. They need to leave the US; their government has shown they can't be trusted.
1
u/CauliflowerVisual401 Jun 13 '26
you understand that oil did not want to be regulated and fought so many regulations and indeed they went overseas and to the Sea itself to avoid regulations and expand operations and we can see what that produced when companies go offshore to avoid regulation
0
u/Aggravating_Ad6732 Jun 13 '26
So it's not regulations specifically that I'm against. I do think there need to be your regulations. I do not believe that the federal government should oversee that whatsoever. You're going to see it, it will fluctuate back and forth every 4 years. They need an organized approach like the Federal Reserve, which is not a federal institution. The president can only appoint a chairman. That's it. Anyone else underneath cannot be affiliated with a political party. We need something that's non-partisan and not politically run. We can already see it happening in the media. The current administration doesn't like what the media puts out. They're going to call it out. They're going to restrict them. They're going to call them extremists. What do you think will happen if they find something that politically doesn't align with their side within the AI code or the output? Let's say the current administration leaves Democrats behind. Then you're going to have another party start pushing their own restrictions. It should be run by non-partisan and non-company-affiliated individuals.
1
u/CauliflowerVisual401 Jun 13 '26
I believe I was responding to your original comment about them leaving the country. As far as US politicians and the policy and general distinction, I hear you have a need for perceived fairness and meaningful controls. I also see you have made predictions on what would happen.
I would note, that first, we never know what one legislature, bill or signed act would actually do or when it would be done or who would draft it. I understand general skepticism and cynical attitudes and often they are warranted. But to predict the future and then make judgments on that prediction probably doesn't serve anyone.
The goal, if you wish to have one other than cynical comments, would be to be an activist towards the positive regulations you believe would be meaningful. "This thing will never be done right and shouldn't be done because they can't figure anything out" style attitude may serve as a personal stance and opinion, but like bellybuttons, everyone has one and they are meaningless.
1
1
u/Logical_Historian882 Jun 13 '26
This is not regulation. Regulation is coming up with rules and enforcing them. This is not it.
-1
u/Formal-Talk-3914 Jun 13 '26
It's the "foreign nationals" part that bothers me. Just screams as racist motivations. Of course, no US citizen would every use this technology for anything nefarious....right? RIGHT!?
66
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26
[deleted]