undefined

points

[-]

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.”

by adriand8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by tbugrara6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

[flagged]

by codexon6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

They are still offering full mythos to project glasswing companies and those that pay them enough.

by SwellJoe8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by felixgallo8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by SwellJoe6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by felixgallo5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by SwellJoe28 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

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.