No, he asked for the government to make the decision in light of 3rd party analysis. Which is what happened here - an independent company demonstrated a jailbreak, and the government issued a restriction on deployment based on that finding.
reply"The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions."
replyYou are wrong.
Read in full here https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential.
I know you won't though. haha.
I am having trouble understanding which ingredient you feel is missing here.
replyCan you be more specific? It seems to me that the there was a third party assessment, they identified risks associated with the specific risk groups, and the government therefore chose to block the model's deployment.
You have to be precise: the gov blocked “export” of the model (search for ITAR for a lengthy history on this), and Anthropic picked up its ball and went home.
replyI’m willing to bet internally they thought this was a good plan from the beginning - from engagement, requests for reg oversight, Mythos PR, silently nerfing AI engineering quality, and now this “pulling the model” stunt. It’s frustrating, I generally like using the Claude models, but I don’t think I’ve ever been a customer of such a user-hostile company before.
So if I can demonstrate a jailbreak in ChatGPT, the government will immediately slap a "no foreign nationals" ban on GPT-5.5?
replythat's cute
reply