undefined

points

[-]

> Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest.

So what prevented them from putting in the sort of safeguards they ended up putting in without hyping it for months prior as being so good, it's too dangerous?

by meowface2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not sure what you're saying. They spent ages adding guardrails to Mythos. Then they spent ages creating a whole new even more guardrailed version of Mythos called Fable. Then they added tons of classifiers so API requests to Fable would get rejected even if you ask a question like "what is a molecule". They put the thickest layer of bubble wrap around the model of any model in history. And then just today they made the classifiers even much more extreme than at the initial launch.

If they were truly honest in their beliefs of the potential risks of this model, how would their behavior have differed? I would expect exactly the behavior we see, if they were being honest in their belief.

Also note Dario here saying they shot themselves in the foot commercially with how they handled the rollout of the model - you can tell by his reflexive reaction how ridiculous he considers the accusation: https://youtu.be/v1wZwxY3CMg?t=2103

by Matl1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I am saying they could have not said anything about it being too dangerous etc. and just released Fable as a new model once the safeguards were in place and Mythos to trusted orgs as they did.

Instead they choose to hype for months about having a model that's simply 'too dangerous to release'.

In other words, why hype it beforehand instead of just quietly add the safeguards they ended up with anyways and release then?