Finally they will pay for all the scaremongering they been doing to sell their models as something so much ahead of all else.
Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.
Finally they will pay for all the scaremongering they been doing to sell their models as something so much ahead of all else.
Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.
The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence. This is part of a clear historical record that is available for anyone to Google. Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
Arbitrary imposition of export controls is also part of the history of frontier tech. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize them and treat AI like nuclear weapons. They would not be attempting to IPO and they for sure would not sell their weapon-like thing to the general public.
I think this is a reasonable point, but a better comparison might be to nuclear energy. I think the frontier labs sincerely believe that AI can be developed at great benefit to humanity, and they clearly want to lead that push, but they also sincerely believe there is a real catastrophic risk.
They all believe that they are building the machine of doom. The thing that drives the moral dilemma to continue doing it is simply the prisoner's dilemma - the cat is out of the bag, if they don't do it, another (less ethical?) actor would do it.
Yes, I believe the reasoning is that they think safety research can best be done from the frontier.
If you believe it will be developed regardless and that that there's a 30% chance of doom, they want a company prioritising safety research to be the one threading that needle.
Yeah all they care about is safety, but lets see how many of them quits once US government command them to work on autonomous killbots.
To make sure we keep track of what we're talking about with loss-of-control x-risk, a sufficiently smart version of Claude Code is more deadly than any government's army of autonomous killbots, because it can recursively self improve and has unpredictable training-induced preferences.
Sufficiently smart version of Claude Code: dont exist.
Autonomous flying killbots: exist.
Once somebody scientifically prove and shows any kind of self-improving software we can start bothering about it. I pretty sure everyone trying to do it and it would be all over the news once its here.
I saw an llm bootstrapping and testing it's own harness and rewriting it's own system prompt. If that's not self improving then I dunno what is.
Can the thing enter into an runaway looop while improving the model itself -- probably not, not without us not noticing at least
That's exactly what Fable is. They use Fable to improve Fable. I reckon the successful experiments must go into the model training set with a strong RL signal, and that is why they are so paranoid about people using Fable for LLM tasks. Fable knows what it did to improve itself. Pure speculation of course.
We're on track to get there globally and economic pressures will ensure it happens. It's not too early to worry about it
There's a 745 mile front of the Ukraine war where neither side have been able to pierce for months because of drone warfare. It's definitely not too early to worry about it.
I guess they were talking about self improving software. Which obviously not there and likely wont be there soon.
As for killbots they are all over frontline, but dont actually need particularly smart LLMs to run - some good enough segmentation, pattern recognition on smartphone SOC is enough to kill hundreds of thousans of people.
You don’t even need autonomy to be deadly. Fly by wire is proving to be very effective as a case in point.
Most of the drones are operator guided and the ether is really badly jammed out there with the exception of glass and that new redacted thingy.
It will start moving really fast once the automatically targeted anti-drone turrets get to production pipeline. Now calling it anti drone is a bit of self delusion -- pattern recogniser gonna pattern recognise whatever it's told to, including "anything moving that emits EV or IR and not broadcasting the friendly signal hard enough".
I wonder how it is supposed to behave if the invasive fauna decides to call it quits and surrender. Should the robot following the Convention or is it yet another accountability sink?
One thing I'm sure of -- the killing not will b blessed by at least one Orthodox priest, maybe this year. OCU will have to develop guidance on that matter.
That's ridiculous scifi nonsense
Dario blinked when he was asked to do it and Sam Altman was in Hegseth's DMs promising all the AI child killing the US government can order up within minutes. No one meaningful will quit over this, that's why all of the biggest US tech companies can march in pride parades and provide compute to the perpetrators of the genocide in Gaza at the same time.
Can you show me a world power that is not trying to use cutting edge AI for military purposes?
Because other countries are starting to use AI for military purposes, other countries are also looking into it to asses and learn. Here in Europe there is the EU AI Act to limit harm everyday harm to citizens caused by AI systems. However, it currently excludes military. The new legislation is just started to be enforced to high risk uses (employment filtering, biometrics, etc.) in august 2026, and full rollout in august 2027. In April 2025 there is a report from EU this legislation may help pave the road for military AI usage conventions [1]
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7695...
This is a poor way of framing the question, a better one would be can you find me another world power that is misallocating trillions of capital in vaporware with very little to show for it?
The United States government isn't, capital is. That capital can come from outside the US and much of it is.
That said: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-09/china-pre...
Building frontier models to do safety research on them is what Anthropic was all about in the early years. That included building the best model, but only releasing it once it became the second best. Precisely to avoid an AI arms race where everyone is forced to release better and better models, risks be damned
Something changed their mind, and since Opus 3 they are in the business of releasing the best models
Exactly. And within the AI safety discourse, your behavior hinges on what you think the default chance of doom is, and how optimistic you are about alignment work being able to limit it before we reach superintelligence.
People running the labs are in a middle camp where they are scared enough by AI to take the threat seriously, but much more optimistic about alignment than the people who seem to have thought about it the most.
The scary part is not so much that the doomers give the extinction scenario 50% (Hinton) to 95%+ chance (Yampolskiy, Yudkowsky), but that the optimists (Amodei, Bengio) give it a 10%+ chance. And everyone keeps dancing.
> If you believe it will be developed regardless and that that there's a 30% chance of doom, they want a company prioritising safety research to be the one threading that needle.
They also want to be trillionaires. If they don't built it, no trillions. So they have to build it, now (and get their IPO done before the bubble pops).
It’s all ego. I, and only I, am the bringer of doom, slayer of worlds.
I am so smart that what I do will destroy humanity, or save it.
Fable 5 was great, but not that great.
Sorry to be crude, but both the government and anthropic are acting like a bunch of pussies.
Meow.
You’re not getting it. Anthropic continual fear mongering is harming wider AI industry development and the gov has always been looking for an excuse to assert their dominance. They got what they deserve.
Or maybe government AI regulation and international cooperation is the only thing that can break the arms race dynamics and is necessary to save us from a substantial chance of doom?
Or they could have thrown the letter away.
But that makes no sense here. "If I'm not doing it then someone else will" does not work if everyone is doing it anyway.
Even if they had the best model on the market and applied it with perfect alignment and safeguards, what would stop someone else from releasing a worse but unrestrained model that is still "good enough" to do damage?
It's as if we said "gain-of-function research can lead to horrible biological weapons, so everyone should be doing it, but our company will focus on the most infectious viruses, so no one else will do it"
Don't want to sound rude, but if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell to you.
This is a naive justification and Dario & Sam et al are smart people and they know it is.
The ends don't justify the means. OpenAI was meant to be a nonprofit, now they're subverting it. Anthropic is a PBC looking at a trillion dollar IPO. Dario and Sam don't even hold hands in front of world leaders[1] (look how childish).
Do you *really* think those guys are doing something that's not for the sake of their egos and pockets? The bridge is still available.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/openai-sam-altman-anthropic-...
LLMs refuse to give the recipe for making meth. That, along with the various other unspeakable things, is the less-doom version.
You need to read Empire of AI by Karen Hao. Just because these leaders convince their workers to toil away their lives under some fake auspice doesn't mean it's what they all believe. Just a small subset.
The vast majority just care about money + power, let's not make it more complicated by bringing in delusional fanatics into the picture.
We're still acting like this is major turning point in society when these tools can barely find a market outside of turning $5 into $1, the leaders of these companies are now at the stage where they are trying to orchestra a national bailout under the guise of sovereign wealth fund lunacy when the vast majority of society hates these tools, companies, and people working for them.
I agree with this. But i think Ilya and Dario hold these beliefs sincerely. Probably a sizable portion of Anthropic employees too
My personal issue in comparing LLM progress and risk as labs publicly predict it with nuclear power in the middle of the 20th century is that the processes by which it works where fairly quickly well understood and the risk could thus be realistically assessed. Some powerplant operators did not adhere with best practices, but building a relatively safe nuclear power plant was not impossible given appropriate effort and spending. Heck, according to some, we could have even gone far more fail-safe approaches (molten salt) if military interest haden’t been at play.
With what is predicted by frontier labs for LLMs, all of this is not the case. We are far further from any understanding of how these models work internally than in the early days of fission and, if this was actually creating a truly intelligent, autonomous entity, alignment seems unsolvable as well, at least the way it is proposed.
It’s why I have from the get go been critical of this doomsday framing and tended to always dislike it. This is basically the outcome that was inevitable given the framing and it was bought to prevent far less stringent, but more actionable possible regulation that labs very much wanted to avoid.
https://karpathy.github.io/2026/02/12/microgpt/
None of SOTA LLMs are any different - they just much much larger and have a lot of optimizations.
Fact that LLM companies trying to sell it as some kind of magic is just proof how much lies is here.
All it does is just predict next "word" at any given time.
This is obviously true. It's very hard to predict whatever you gonna decompress from a lossely "compressed" dataset using floating point math.This is why you cant solve it all with pre-training or censorship on top, but instead you need a good sandboxes and harnesses.
By how, I meant specifically the internal activations, which no person in the field claims to have a comprehensive understanding of, not next token prediction as the underlying technology. The whole interpretability of it all is the crux I was referring to, though I will give that you are right, that’s not really the how it works and I worded it sloppily.
Anthropic are putting more effort than most into this and I find their work fascinating in that area, though like with OpenAI, I will maintain that if they truly believed this problem must be solved to stave off major catastrophe, they’d solely focus on interpretability of other labs models, not work on and market their own.
All humans do is predict the next action at any given time. You roll your eyes, it's a tired argument, but still. You have memories, a personality, thoughts ranging from the long running to the mere reflexive, you have a rich conscious experience, and all of this in service of generating the next thing that you do at any given time. If you actually knew how LLMs worked, you could rewrite them as code, refactor it, disable jailbreaks, and put out a superior product. Your description only covers what an LLM does, not how. Part of the how is that it necessarily predicts multiple words ahead. It wouldn't be possible to write couplets otherwise, and they could do that in the GPT-3 era.
Some of them believe they are building God, and if they can get there first with their God, they can build it in their image and commandeer the free choice of the rest of humanity by force to ensure there will be no God but their God.
I wish I was kidding. At least that faction is less harmful than the ones who want to use murder to stop AI research.
That's not how nerds think. You can believe there's a high chance of what you're working on being dangerous and still be unable to stop working on it. As Oppenheimer put it, "when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it".
Accelerationism is an established political philosophy. Why is it obvious that they are insincere when they could equally think that the only way to control it is to be the ones building it?
History has shown over and over that that strategy is doomed to fail - see communism, nuclear energy, or meddling with the Middle East for some arbitrary recent examples.
They believe in the danger of out of control super-intelligence. The generous interpretation is that they believe they can contain it.
No, that's what *you* would apparently do.
Some of us think it's bad for governments to have unequal access to nuclear weapons, as it turns a deterrent into a gun-in-a-knife-fight that lets them stab whoever they want with impunity, lest they shoot anyone who tries to interfere.
See: Russia invading Ukraine.
This assumes that they believe two things which I don't think they do: 1. that the US is the only place where this will be developed, and 2. that the government will be able to handle this better than anyone else.
Perhaps more like nuclear power? Potentially very beneficial but also dangerous.
JFYI for-profit companies make pretty OK nuclear power plants
Thank you for writing this. It’s such a classic example of ”do what I say not what I do” but in reverse. Why would you ever judge a CEO or company by their statements and not their actions. Scaremongering is incredibly efficient for marketing, the fact that both players are using it to drive monetary gain is kind of a tell.
They aren't saying there's a 100% chance of doom.
They believe there's a non-zero chance of doom so would rather an org that prioritises safety to be the one at the frontier, on the assumption (I presume) that there will be a frontier regardless.
This. People who care about animal cruelty dont go building largest ever meatfarms and slaughterhouses.
People who opposing arms manufacturing and gun violence dont jump to work for gun companies.
People who really want AI benefit all humanity dont stick working with lying CEOs who want to convert company from a non-profit.
Etc. So many examples.
One major source of conflict in AI policy / AI safety is that very smart people have radically diverging intuitions about how dangerous superintelligence is and how difficult it is to align.
A first group dismisses the problem entirely, saying intelligence != power and AI doesn't have "drives".
A second group believes that alignment is solvable through engineering and iteration, and that we have the best chance of surviving if people with the right intentions are the ones working on it.
A third believes that aligning a superintelligence is a unique category of problem, that we are nowhere close to the level of scientific understanding needed to achieve it, that we only have one shot (because once a sufficiently powerful superintelligence exists it will thwart all future attempts, and alignment techniques that worked on dumber AI will likely not work on it), and that the world will have to coordinate to avoid killing ourselves off by building superintelligence before we understand how to do it safely, the way we have coordinated to avoid nuclear war.
The Anthropic and OpenAI founders, Elon, and Anthropic engineers are mostly in the second category. Some safety people at Anthropic and OAI are in the third category, but leading people in the third category think that pure safety roles at the labs are potentially impactful enough to be worth not quitting.
Theres quite a large number of people who believe it's basically impossible when the intelligence gap is too big
I have a fourth, secret position: we achieved superintelligence the moment we achieved normal intelligence. Speed is a power in and of itself; and even really primitive models like GPT-2 could generate tokens faster than humans could write. They could also be parallelized on hardware that already exists. That is superintelligence in two dimensions - speed and population count. All the arguments the AI safety people are making are about superintelligence in a different dimension - that of "single-context scaling" - but the other dimensions are also relevant to the conversation.
And the superintelligence currently available to us is already causing lots of documented harms. AI psychosis. Sexy suicide coaches. Slop. The problem is that those are all the harms the dirty, filthy AI ethicists talk about. The AI safety people want to talk about new and exciting harms that only the scaling dimension can bring us.
My personal opinion is that if a superintelligence catastrophe actually happens, mitigating those harms will neatly move over from the safety bucket to the ethics bucket, and the safety people will start imagining some new and even worse kinds of harms the next model will make.
> Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize them...
This comment makes no sense. Id you think this tech is dangerous and happening soon and clearly they think the safest way to have it releases is to do so first and model safe ways of doing things. Clearly we cab agree or disagree it's internally consistent what they are doing and aligns with their statements.
And you and OP think the best way to be first to release this is tie all of their funding for the exponentially growing expense is to they notoriously slow moving, bureaucratic government includinf funding process? And the best way to develop it is to directly tie their fate to this notoriously capricious administration?
These comments make no sense. Even if you're completely against Anthropic those comments make no sense.
Not sure you really intended to reply to me, but I'm not against Anthropic or "AI".
I am agaist hypocrites.
They selling next word prediction as "intellegence" and all knowing oracle to non tech savvy population who have no clue how it works.
And they also try to play a babysitter or big brother whatever you prefer for people in IT because uh oh their text generator can be used for cybersecurity research.
Its like if developers of nmap, wireshark, SRE tools, static code analyzers or fuzzers would market them as super duper dangerous.
FAFO. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
They don't stick working for sama, they split off and found Anthropic.
I oppose gun violence and I would go to work for a firearms manufacturer.
I oppose nuclear war, and I would go to work in the supply chain for nuclear weapons.
Deterrence and game theory are very real.
It's the narcissism.
Its money and power. This is all these people care about just like almost everyone else.
Or might be deep inside they relly care about it, but that $2,000,000 / year salary and $10,000,000 stock option just overpowered them.
Safety my ass.
What do you think they would do differently if they were genuinely worried about the safety?
I think those who care about safety would try to push for how 99% of all scientific research is done - in universities and actual labs, with transparent information on red teaming results.
Also with international cooperation like how humanity regulate actually dangerous stuff: virus and vaccine research and nuclear energy.
Not hidden behind walls of 10 commercial organizations where each pushing for commercial adoption and IPO like ASAP before bubble bursts.
Not lying and scaremongering public into how their models will replace everyone tomorrow or destroy civilization via cyberattacks.
That line of thinking (public goods) is why the same people started OpenAI as a non profit originally.
Notice how almost no Universities are producing large models?
A key problem is that orgs can't get enough funds to stay on the frontier. And they believe they must be on the frontier to do (and apply) safety research. OpenAI needed to spin off a for-profit subsidiary to accept investment to build things.
And it seem(ed) hard to get one government to fund and take safety seriously, let alone an international cooperation.
If they started a university/gov cooperative to solve this, do you think they would do less of the "scaremongering of the public" talk? My guess it that it would be similar.
The same kind of restrictions that you hint at (eg, treating it like a public virus research) are why they rub a lot of people the wrong way in the corporate world, I think. Normally companies downplay the risks of their own products. See cigarette companies. Anthropic do still publish safety research and red teaming info. But I do think they honestly believe they can't do this work without the resources of a company, and they were burnt by the non-profit structure (Anthropic has a "Long-Term Benefit Trust" instead).
We should definitely keep them to account, but I don't personally think Anthropic have acted in a way broadly inconsistent with safety belief yet. Many of these decisions are self-serving too (eg. protecting models) so they also haven't been seriously tested, either. But the individuals do have a very long history of talking about it (including hurting their own reputation) from even before the chatpgt-moment money train rolled in.
edit: for clarity, but still messily/quickly written
It remains possible that Altman and Amodei are sincere: they might believe that AI is dangerous like nuclear weapons, but there's no way to stop its development (especially since it would need to be stopped globally, not just in the US and countries the US can influence) and they consider themselves to be more likely to do a good job of it than their competitors.
“OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5”
https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/op...
Marketing or actual fear? We’ve got 5 and 5.5 out now… he compared 5 to the Manhattan project. AI may one day be an economic Manhattan project but GPT 5 wasn’t it.
It’s a meme because they overdo it.
At some intelligence capability there can be catastrophic risk, the fact that we don't yet have any catastrophe doesn't mean the risk wasn't real. It's similar to new viruses which don't lead to outbreaks, the correct takeaway isn't "oh you were insane to panic bc nothing happened". There is small risk (and increasing) of huge harms with each improvement
The risk wasn't real because we now have access to the model and can see with our own eyes how this model could never have posed a risk to begin with.
Perfect prediction of what a new tech can do is always impossible.
Given that, they have a choice only between excessive caution or recklessness.
Would you rather they acted like the tobacco companies and downplayed known risks, e.g. all the times LLM output got in the news already for dangerously bad advice, sychophantic encouragement of mental health issues, finding previously unknown security vulnerabilities etc.?
> Would you rather they acted like the tobacco companies and downplayed known risks, e.g. all the times LLM output got in the news already for dangerously bad advice, sychophantic encouragement of mental health issues, finding previously unknown security vulnerabilities etc.?
Well, they've done that too, if we're looking for reasons to doubt their sincere concern about it.
This is like a smoker that lives to 100 saying that he had no increased risk of developing lung cancer because he didn’t at 100.
It's more like a hypothetical world where there were millions of smokers and none of them ever developed lung cancer
Every public statement out of a CEO's mouth is marketing. It would literally be violating fiduciary duty to be saying anything else.
Funny they're never afraid of their competitor's models, but the ones they build (and release) are just soooooo scary.
Very true.
Did you watch the linked video: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mbafk7/openai_ceo...
It all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me if you watch it.
Also fable was good but not Manhattan level project, i honestly did not find a major difference between it and gpt 5.5
Sam Altman is not one of those people. But other founders certainly felt that way.
Sam Altman doesn't really know all that much about LLMs, he's a sales/marketing guy, not technical.
So it doesn't really matter what he thinks
Those are the folks who run the industry
Except for the uncomfortable fact that he controls the salary and job status of the people who do know much about LLMs.
OK. So? Would you say Harry Truman was a nuclear scientist?
Franklin D. Roosevelt is a better fit for an administrative nuclear program "founder" analogy.
Truman was totally in the dark until April 1945 by which time the bulk of the PoC and weapons prep work was done and the project was running fully independently w/o POTUS involvement.
Yet the guys in the lab coats worked for him.
Not for the bulk of the Manhattan project and not all the people in lab coats .. the intellectual founders that repeatedly pushed for the project and demonstrated feasibility weren't even US citizens.
I picked the guy whose contribution was smaller on purpose to highlight the hollowness of the claim about “controlling the careers” of people who understand what’s going on.
Imagine for a few minutes, and really let it sink in what you could do, ask, plan, or learn, if you had the full undivided attention GPT or Claude. not a commercial, guard railed, fine tunes, beat into submission version that is splintered into hundreds of millions of iterations to chat with every one. The open weights original pre consumer grade version. Then, even then you know that it's the worst and dumbest its every going to be, The next time you blink it's exponentially more. Some people don't think about what an exponential curve really means. Others are sitting in the front seat trying not to shit themselves and appear like reasonable normal people. How one responds to that is as unknown as what's going to happen after we cross that line, but it's coming and holy shit so many people haven't even wrapped their head around how much bigger it is than the petty human things we distract ourselves with. Being in awe and terrified and wanting to run and to be apart of the most significant thing in our entire existence of being sentient is normal. We have nothing to compare it to. Nothing to base predictions on. We ar about to have company for the first time. We're going to have a conversation with something other than ourselves since we formed the ability to speak. One minute to the next will pass q It's all or nothing. Like it or not. It's too late. buckle up.
> Imagine […] what you could do, ask, plan, or learn, if you had the full undivided attention GPT or Claude. not a commercial, guard railed, fine tunes, beat into submission version that is splintered into hundreds of millions of iterations to chat with every one.
That is not how it works. It is not “splitered”, there is no divided attention.
There is nothing to indicate that LLMs are improving "exponentially" at this point.
The last few iterations show a logarithmic curve at best tbh. If we are to see a major advance, it'll be something like the implementation and infrastructure for byte-level transformers.
People don't get that big labs actively want government regulation, not because they are genuinely concerned about AI misalignment. But because it is the 101 in how to achieve and crystalize oligopoly. What they want is "only the government and the big guys can work on AI", for the rest of us it would be illegal.
And they want Americans to be locked into paying 50 dollars per 1 million output tokens.
Not only that, they know that the real enemy of big Labs is not china is "home gpu/tpu" improvements. Without government intervention in a couple of years everyone could have their own fable like model at home. But of course big labs and government will not allow it never
On an unrelated side note, I wish we would start saying about "$X / megatoken" over "$X / million tokens".
No good reason really, it just sounds cooler.
Following S.I. notation, we might have Tk for token, so kTk, MTk, GTk etc.
Fat government contracts, consulting, safety services, and exclusive tender access all follow from this regulation too.
The sensation I’m left with is a handful of goons making up new IPO math thanks to a specific constellation of political forces, using access and favour with those forces to bake themselves into the defence industry, and that the taxpayer and investor will be left holding the bag when reality rears its head. But in the short term, even as a clear ploy, it’s super profitable for all the oligarchs and hedge funds flush with recovery cash.
Like Enron, there was big profits to make if you knew what they were doing. Tinkerbell math with undeniable profit potential for a select few.
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
And then somehow came to conclusion that the only way to address that risk was to go ahead and spend a gigantic amount of effort and resources to build exactly that superintelligence...
> OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence
Why would they sell there services to Palantir and/or to the military then?
Because the US military and it's contractors are good?
"Why did they open an orphanage instead of pouring acid into a town water tower?!?"
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).
> LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence
The "never superintelligence" part I'll buy, though only in the sense of sample efficiency and generalisation ("quality superintelligence"), as they clearly have a superhuman breadth of skills, and run at superhuman speed.
"Never" out-of-control is obviously falsified by the already existing headlines about times they've gone out of control… in part, in some cases, because of their superhuman speed.
They've never gone out of control. All those headlines are cases where humans deliberately relinquished control.
A distinction without a difference.
If you're asleep at the wheel, you're legally responsible for the car crash, but the car itself was the thing which by crashing caused injuries.
If you deliberately relinquished control of your computer to OpenClaw, you're (I hope) legally responsible for whatever it does, but that doesn't stop it bankrupting you or deleting all your emails or whatever it was you connected it to.
DNA printers exist and are a thing. In 2010 we could all tell ourselves that no sane person would ever let some future AGI "out of the box" and onto the internet. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, do you seriously expect nobody to connect an LLM to a DNA printer, despite this being a terrible idea, given all the other things they've connected LLMs to despite it being a terrible idea?
> A distinction without a difference
That's absurd. The distinction is at the heart of the entire discussion.
It's fine if you want to discuss the disruptive effects of LLMs in the hands of the masses, but that's not what anyone means when they say "out-of-control" in the context of the ASI meme
> It's fine if you want to discuss the disruptive effects of LLMs in the hands of the masses, but that's not what anyone means when they say "out-of-control" in the context of the ASI meme
On the contrary.
The e.g. paperclip maximiser isn't "an AI decides to make paperclips", it is "some idiot tells an AI to make paperclips and leaves it unsupervised".
Even when people were priding themselves on plain just not believing Yudkowsky's claims that him role-playing as an AI could talk people into letting him out of the box*, the entire point was "let's get an AI to do work so we don't have to".
The entire point of AI has always been to automate stuff, to let ourselves not have to think about the stuff it does. Same as industrial machinery, and it took us long enough to sort out workplace health and safety and emergency off-switches for those. Or even more basic things like not having kids dart in and out of the unstoppable moving steam looms while they were in motion.
We are really, really slow at safety for this kind of thing.
* https://www.yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox
Which is going out of control. Something not under control is out of control. If I jump out of a moving car, I deliberately relinquished control of it. It's still out of control. What a silly semantic game.
"LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence" might be relevant if there weren't many hundreds of researchers working (at OpenAI, Anthropic and elsewhere) on AI designs not based on the transformer (LLM) architecture.
People are working on lots of things all the time, so far, nothing has approached the efficacy of the transformer architecture.
LLMs didn't emerge by chance, they are the culmination of decades of research intersecting with brute force engineering rigor in a perfect storm of innovation. You're not just going to stumble into an alternative approach by dumping loads of cash into research.
Most of those researchers would disagree with your statement that the next major breakthrough is probably decades in the future.
Many of the insights accumulated in the decades up to now will probably prove useful for creating non-LLM AI, and the researchers can use LLM AI to speed up their research into non-LLM AI.
> The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
This is not a contradiction.
These things can all be true:
1. That they were afraid of ASI
2. That they continue to be afraid of ASI
3. That they recognize that LLMs aren't in fact a path to ASI
4. That the current models aren't the existential danger they'd have us believe
5. That they're claiming they are because it makes for good marketing
I put very little weight behind any of those fearful statements made years ago. I assume leaders of those companies are fairly smart and rational, and there's no rational explanation for them running companies building the very thing they (supposedly) genuinely believe could kill us all.
I don't doubt they may have held genuine fears in the past, but those are long gone by now.
These can be both true:
- there are people who are sincerely concerned about model safety who work at OpenAI and Anthropic
- there are people who are using this concern to generate fear to sell a product who work at OpenAI and Anthropic
It makes sense to be cognizant of the apparent conflict of interest and not take things that at face value, especially when there is so much money involved.
Of all the frontier labs, Anthropic has been the most creative in its marketing. I really, really don't put it beyond them for this to be one big crazy stunt.
Besides, when has the US government been known to do things like this proactively? The phone call came from inside the house.
> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere
GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.
We can argue about sincerity, but I don't think we can argue about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks. It's one or the other.
Either way the evidence seems to indicate we should not listen to AI companies about the risks of AI. Which is not to say that there aren't risks, just that the dealer is the least credible review.
> GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.
No, it was "let's set a precident while these things are not too dangerous, c'mon guys we know y'all can reproduce this easily".
GPT-2 was absolutely too dangerous to release at the time OpenAI made that statement. It’s only safe now because the specific risks they cited were dependent on the public’s lack of knowledge that such systems existed.
bro, it was literally incomprehensibly retarded.
Not at all. The writing is on the wall, and they want you to be locked into paying absurd subscription rates for neutered models while they internally use all of that money to run the unrestricted models to clone all of our businesses and swallow the economy. It really does not take a genius to see the long term play by Anthropic. They're a scummy company and have done everything in their power to lead to a scenario like this, but this isn't the exact scenario they bargained for because it affects their own employees and big foreign buyers. Instead, they'd rather have all of the decision making power themselves.
> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
I'd say their pecuniary interest is a reason one might plausibly doubt their sincerity, as are their continued efforts to build and sell access to the tools.
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.
How is it ironic to believe in a risk that actualizes
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence
this means nothing
> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
If you want to be taken seriously, provide data, proof, so that any outside observer can independently come to the same conclusion instead of taking your word for it. Asking people to trust you for [reasons?] and that you somehow for some reason are right and the other is wrong regardless of if they agree or not. This is the imposition of a viewpoint instead of winning your case, which is not a sensible point of view, and definitely not how you influence opinions.
If I remember correctly, the original GPT was considered too dangerous to release to the wild.
With hindsight, does that hold? If not, then how would we know a model is truly dangerous to release?
I believe some people at these companies are sincere sure, but the CEOs, the investors, your sam altmans etc, the marketing talk.
Hell no, can’t trust a single word.
No reason except what comes from a bit of critical thinking.
What do they stand to gain by fearmongering their models as powerful threats? Clout, funding, fanfare, discussion, limelight, funding, funding, stronger IPO, valuation, funding.
What cybersecurity threshold was crossed by mythos that wasn't already crossed by 4.8/5.5? Crickets from 99% of those who have had access.
Have they pulled the same stunts multiple times before with previous models? Check.
You're blind if you dont think that greed and marketing are behind most things you see and hear about when gigantic corporations are involved.
I don't think anthropic or OAI are evil, but its clear both have contracts/connections with Dod and/or Palantir. Both are powered largely by greed still. If you actually want an example of these sincere founders you think OAI/anthropic are run by... look at Ilya at SSI or something. Please open your eyes and stop spreading your opinions on things you clearly have no clue about.
I wish I were this naive.
How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?
They said why they think it’s a sincere belief: past statements from before the AI hype cycle took off. I take it you have other evidence?
Things can change, and if you know pushing the metaphorical red button brings your company more attention, then you press that button everytime.
So if I claim I am a communist who doesn't want to ever get rich and then someone dangles a billion shiny dollars in front of me to just simply grab and own, you think I'd still be a communist then?
If you go around saying “I’m a communist, I believe in communism, I think it’s very important that we establish communism”? Sure, absolutely. Engels was pretty rich.
Replace the cash with Apple or some other trillion dollar corporation and you're given the CEO's seat and voting control on the BoD. Can I be Tim Cook and preach communism and expect anyone to believe it?
They're going around saying "Imagine no possessions. To help you, we'll take them all. Don't thank us".
OpenAI was, but didn't all those people then leave for Anthropic?
what a profoundly unaware comment
they are more than happy to build the things for themselves
it is all two-faced behavior of the exact kind of manipulators that crave power
Their marketing reinforces the previous post though.
Going for months claiming how good mythos is for security cuz too powerful is their own making.
Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.
We can argue over the definition of scaremongering and what people we’ve never met “really think”, or we can argue over what the actual risks of AI are. I know which one I’d prefer…
I mean it kinda does.
Yes we do. Dario said GPT2 is too dangerous to release. He’s dishonest since that’s obviously not true. This theater is about holding onto power and control. And about limiting competition.
Yes it is funnily true but it was for fake news generation and not it's cyber capabilities.
Another fun little gem of information, government has something called Mayhem
> the autonomous Robo-Hacker AI called Mayhem that’s now in charge of protecting the Pentagon’s most critical systems
Guess Mythos and Mayhem had a chat
It was about spam and scam generation which mostly was true as we can see...
Just like Trump sincerely believed he won the 2020 election.
It can be both.
The amount of self-confidence and belief it takes to get a company through the funding rounds and burn through borrowed money to rise to the top requires an absurd amount of self-delusion.
It's not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they're addressing it.
The clear historical record seems to indicate we've got a bunch of pathological liars trying to automate pathological lying.
Ah yes we are being told to believe in sincerity of people running trillion dollar corporations.
You're saying "this is normal" without making an argument that it's sensible.
>> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
Oh please. Do people really believe this or shit like "Don't do evil". Companies get founded by all kind of people and ideals. They all go out the window quickly.
Why are they both rushing to IPO now then?
Some people do. Read the extropian newsletters from the 90s.
I mean this earnestly: is this copy?
I am biased but I think if they really believed what they were saying, they would be a lot more humble about it.
I suspect what happened is the classic problem: you were sincere, then someone showed you a pile of money bigger than you could possibly imagine and you started to make excuses - Anthropic has a lot of EA people, so the excuse "Imagine how many lives you could save with this much money"[0] is very tempting, especially if all you have to do is diverge slightly from your plan.
[0]: the excuse is even true! You can get a lot of malaria nets/vaccines for 1 million.
> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere
Why? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the "some one will do it eventually, better be us 'good' people to do it first" talking point?
See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it's all to fit themselves into the "'good' people" narrative. It's a centuries old strategy to shield it's user from responsibilities while luring the support from the stupid.
However, the most harmful damage, which is mass layoffs, is already partially done. This could really kill, a massive genocide even, by making people jobless and potentially incomeless. And it is shown that these tech CEOs, they don't care any bit of that beyond the point "I've already told you so".
Look into the history of Sam Altman and his ventures. He sincerely only believes in lying about his companies to investors like he did with Loopt.
He is not even a researcher or an engineer.
And Dario broke up with OpenAI and founded Anthropic because he didn't like Sam's and OpenAI's vision.
"founded by people who believe..." is doing a lot of work and it is hard to believe that in ernest given the sketchy past of the same people.
Most original higher up people who cared about safety and allignment in OpenAI have left.
yes, yes, and Apple forbids sideloading because they're worried about grannies installing malware.
[dead]
There is a huge difference between the company founder saying something like that and the us government saying so.
"Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.
This is good PR for them. They get to tweet about how scary and powerful their models are in the lead up to their IPO.
This just made any closed LLM a huge supply chain risk. Everybody was aware of this possibility, but now it actually happened. It's like having nuclear weapons vs. firing a nuclear weapon.
Especially outside the US customers are going to be very hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.
Switching between LLMs takes all of 30 seconds - there will be no hesitation to adopt whichever LLM is performing the best.
> Especially outside the US customers are going to be very hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.
Not really. There aren't any other choices, and the PRC also heavily utilizes export controls [0].
This is why sovereign AI has become important, as can be seen with EU NatSec uses cases tending to use Mistral [1] and Indian governments starting to use Sarvam [2].
That said, for most commercial usecases, older generations of Opus as well as enterprise grade GPT and Gemini are fairly good.
The distilled OSS models are alright for hobbyists but if you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise grade versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini (most hobbyists don't get access to these) you see how far behind the open weight models are.
Even in China, traditionally open minded models teams like Alibaba's Qwen are looking to become more restricted given the org changes [3].
Also, Corporate RFCs now demand final say on model used and depending on the geo, this can be a dealbreaker (eg. An American financial institution will absolutely blacklist a vendor if they use a Chinese model and same in reverse and European defense vendors mandate sovereign EU models depending on the opportunity).
[0] - https://www.allbrightlaw.com/EN/10475/f9d4055e47e81afb.aspx
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/mistral-defen...
[2] - https://www.sarvam.ai/blogs/partnerships-with-indian-states
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/b39da303-3188-447b-8b65-3dd8dad8b...
> The PRC also heavily utilizes export controls
Matters not for open weight models, no?
> if you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise grade versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini you see how far behind the open weight models are.
I really do feel like DeepSeek V4 Pro is often better than current Sonnet is, in the general case.
Opus 4.7 is a solid step above Sonnet, and Fable was a solid step above Opus 4.7. I've only had Fable for a few days, obviously, but I was decently impressed after Opus 4.8 being a downright disappointment for me (it's just too buggy; I had it go out of control 3 separate times on things Opus 4.7 never had any trouble with.) I still ran into limitations. It's not world-endingly great.
So, based on that, I think DeepSeek V4 Pro is, ignoring multi-modal capabilities, about a couple solid steps behind. Assuming model iteration will continue to decelerate, especially as Anthropic heads into IPO, I'm guessing that DeepSeek will probably be able to strike back with something further along. Of course we'll see how able and willing they are to stay open weight, but they've done well so far so, no reason to doubt them at the moment.
(There are some models that claim to be ahead of DeepSeek V4 Pro. I've tried some of them and really not been that impressed. Maybe it's a me issue.)
Now I reckon that most people just simply don't really need Mythos/Fable for most of what they do and using Mythos/Fable tokens in place of Sonnet-tier models would not make any sense. At my job we already mostly just use Sonnet as it is. I'm sure there is some cutting-edge research where you want the absolute best model available and sure, in that case, you're stuck with Anthropic for the moment.
But is that really everyone? After all, while Mythos was dominating the hype cycles, quite a lot of impressive LLM-assisted CVEs dropped that were not linked to Mythos.
> There aren't any other choices
This might be the trigger for creating other choices. Not within a month, but things can change quickly.
I randomly received an email from chatgpt saying my account was suspended. I appealed it and got it back - I hadn't used it in months.
But this has left a sour taste in my mouth. What if I relied on it for mission critical business processes?
This is potentially far worse than say a gmail account going down. It's the stuff of nightmare fuel.
Not having an alternative is a massive risk for any business.
The issue is compute is constraint and export controlled, as is even knowhow in model training.
Edit: Can't reply
> Time to build fabs back in the states
We are and did. The Intel and TSMC fabs have already started 2nm fabrication.
Compute was constrained. There is a lot happening, especially with chinese chips which currently points to a massive upcoming increase in non-US capacity.
ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ekndZwyOzo
They are export controlled in most cases as well.
Also, the EU, Japan, SK, ASEAN, and India are not supportive of using Chinese tech after China export controlled rare earth exports last years [0].
Software supply chain regulations also make utilizing Chinese software risky for ExChina players and make using ExChina tech risky for Chinese players.
Expect to see RFCs now demanding visibility into what models are used and right of refusal - this is already the norm in F1000s. Similar ones are likely to arise in the EU as well with some of the upcoming industrial policy changes being proposed.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-is-making-it-harde...
> as is even knowhow in model training
you think its that hard to get trade secrets from some openai or anthropic engineer if you promise them anonymity and a new better paid position? hell they might even give it away for free if they think what their company is doing is morally wrong. know how is not source code, you cant catch it with dlp or online leak scanners. you would need 24/7 combined human and electronic surveillance and thats something even the cia reserves for top level targets, it takes too much manpower to use it on everyone.
SMIC hired hundreds of TSMC employees and now its a couple years away from 3nm equivalent chips in full production. export controls only work against poor countries with less advanced industry like russia. china has the resources and export controls give the motivation. and if the eu/us relations get even worse i wouldnt be surprised if the dutch government let asml start selling euv machines to everyone just to get back at trump.
If you’re talking about TSMC Arizona they aren’t fabricating at N3 until end of next year at the earliest, N2 isn’t slated until “end of decade”. I think they’re manufacturing Blackwell there which is N4 / 4nm
Source: https://www.tsmc.com/static/abouttsmcaz/index.htm
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/nv...
Not sure if this is true - I’ve been using mimo and it’s great
It mainly shows that this is another US companies that cannot be trusted by anyone outside of the US because of the US government.
They've already been labeled a "supply chain risk". Probably not a good idea to upset the regulators more. Maybe tomorrow Opus will be declared too dangerous for the public.
Cratering their user base outside of the US is hardly going to be good for their IPO.
You're mistaken, this is a cratering of the userbase inside and outside of the US. The ban is on any foreigner whether abroad or living in the USA, so Anthropic has no choice but to completely shut down access to the model for the whole world including the US.
Their IPO is well and truly fucked now. This also means no other frontier lab in the US is allowed to exceed Opus 4.8 capabilities.
If you're a luddite or a decel you should literally be dancing in the streets right now. And, if you're a tankie you'll be dancing right next to them. And, if you were hoping for a Star Trek-like future, you just adjusted your timeline for the worse.
>this is a cratering of the userbase inside and outside of the US.
Is it really? It was limited release anyway (like hypebeast merch!). Everything people are gonna talk about for a week is gonna be about how Fable was so cool that it got banned by the feds. If it's just the Trump admin being the Trump admin, Amodei is just gonna have to pay up as a racket / marketing expense. Or it is like I'm suspecting and this was pre-bribed and the ban is kabuki theater.
>And, if you were hoping for a Star Trek-like future, you just adjusted your timeline for the worse.
The funny thing is that solar and batteries advancements are actually this, not LLMs, but your framing kinda fits anyways.
> The funny thing is that solar and batteries advancements are actually this
No no no, dont say it here. Green tech is now owned by China that wants to destroy everything.
And US bigtech working hard to save everything by building safe controlled super AI that will burn all the energy it has access to.
The main error of the AI bubble is expressed in the The Jetsons cartoon from the early 60s.
In the future, everyone obviously would be running nuclear powered cars. It was just an engineering problem to be solved. Ford made the Ford Nucleon prototype in 1958.
The nuclear optimism completely blinded people to the ridiculous idea of an individual handling nuclear material for personal use.
The AI bubble error is this idea that everyone is going to have "AGI" in their pocket. It is just a completely absurd idea that is not going to happen.
Fable was interesting from what I tried but nothing close to AGI yet here we are. The models don't get smarter and LESS restricted from here.
To me, right away it seemed that the "Mythos moment" was extraordinarily bearish for the assumptions the AI bubble is built on.
The Star Trek future is back on track.
Star Trek is cyber socialism, with the means of production owned by the Federation.
China is the only player working towards this.
[dead]
This is just a case of not greasing the right palms. Some contributions will be made and this goes away.
“Anthropic buys 75% of Truth Social’s ad inventory”
Funny. But unfortunately this is well within the realm of possibilities these days.
Incorrect. Heavy government regulation means it is limited how they can sell this model and to whom.
It would be if it was rationally tied to the strength of the model. More likely, it’s simply the government deciding who can compete.
Is it now? From a company's point of view, does it really matter that some expensive tool is allegedly good or not if it's reliability/availability is poor and subject to completely arbitrary and unpredictable change?
It also signals that Anthropic is a bad choice if you need stable access to their product outside the US.
And they don't have to actually serve expensive model compute and this all goes away once they contribute to the right charitable organizations and patriotic causes funneling money to the right people.
This is quite clearly corporate capture of the white house by a competitor influencing policy, but it's hard to imagine something that plays more into anthropic's hand. They now own the model that was so good the US government made them shut it off.
it may be really good pr, but it's really bad for their IPO. If their market for future models is usa only, their potential revenue is cut by 50% at least. (and it's even worse because it means Europe, India, and China will all have companies making their own models that anthropic needs to stay ahead of)
Another sibling thread already called this out, but mentioning here: it's not "USA only", it's "US citizens only" (and I'm not entirely sure how dual-citizenship interacts with this, but I assume you can't sell to them, either, since they are by definition also foreign nationals). A private company only being able to do business with folks they can verify are solely US citizens (who themselves are also willing to submit verification of said citizenship to a private company), has a relatively small pool of potential users.
And so if this policy holds, Anthropic has functionally had Fable killed by government intervention, and in a logically consistent world, this would imply all other US-based AI labs may also never exceed existing (read: Opus) capabilities.
What interesting times we live in, indeed.
Regarding the dual-citizenship, you are wrong to assume that. To US government you are US citizen and that is all that matters, even if you have 5 different citizenships government and justice system don't care, you need to follow the US laws and can't cherry pick what you want. Regarding users, for any of this big 3 (Alphabet, Anthropic, OpenAI) only important customers are enterprises, not individual users.
It kills their entire Enterprise market which is a far bigger deal than just consumer KYC headaches
I don't think so, most of enterprise customers are US based companies. They will basically give Mythos to US citizens in R&D while others will use Opus. I hope this is not the actual intent.
How many entreprise customers that aren't in the defense sector currently have R&D departments entirely composed of US citizens?
And what does it mean for indirect access to the models, through say agents working off ticket systems.
The problem here is that the valuations of these AI companies was based on the fact that they'd keep improving models. A company that just serves the latest Opus isn't worth trillions.
You think Anthropic will ask all their enterprise customers to provide passports for all their employees and then setup individual Claude accounts for each and every employee to gatekeep access to Mythos? Because a plain ole api key no longer cuts it
Indeed, this affects way more than just Anthropic.
I think it's the opposite. Who would want to buy shares in a company that's been flagged as a supply chain risk?
The secret ingredient is public and brazen bribery, and the one thing that Anthropic doesn't lack is cash.
But what happens when they fix whatever's making it a risk?
They'll walk away with two black eyes from the US government, and we'll all be left to speculate on when the next sucker punch will land
They literally state here that they can't do that, since the risk is jailbreaking which seems to be an intrinsic part of LLMs.
Put the LLM in a jail.
It can't get out.
Not if it's a good jail.
Solved.
"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"
“Not a commodity”
[dead]
This affects more than just Anthropic. It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses. I wouldn't cheer for that.
It appears to affect only the companies that Trump decides it should affect.
When did conservatives abandon the free market?
Just like “rule of law” and “family values”, “the troops” and some other stuff, free markets were never something they really care about.
The reality of Republican free markets were about compounding and growing big business and resource extraction at the expense of everyone else.
The rest is all about convincing suckers that getting kicked in the balls is good for them. The most obvious example being farmers. Most aspects of agriculture have been consolidated into oblivion and the markets are not super functional. 80% of the dairy operations in my state are out of business. 60 companies dominate eggs in the US - there used to be 3 in my city.
Immediately. It's always been a smokescreen, and markets have never been truly free. Thumbs on scale, at all times.
When they turned into an authoritarian movement.
I think without a clear, shared definition of “free” the term “free market” has no actual social value and just becomes a political football that sounds good but changes meaning at a whim. Some people use it to mean completely unregulated, some people use it as a synonym for “fair”, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
The big difference between left and right is that leftish politics are based on everyone being equal, and rightish politics accept that some are more equal than others.
It’s not such a terrible tension to live with. We can have, say, equal rights to life while also allowing unequal rights to gold nuggets. You might have more gold nuggets than I do but we both have the right to live in peace.
The far ends of the spectrum though involve, respectively, redistribution of gold nuggets to all, and at the other end a commitment to survival of the fittest that extends to viewing any kind of market regulation as commie bullshit.
The quip about some being more equal than others is literally from a book written specifically to criticize a leftist state.
Yes but I don’t think the pig regime in Orwell’s Animal Farm really stayed true to the farm’s leftist roots :)
Snowball did nothing wrong!
I frequently see references to Regan and the ATC strike-busting. Can't tell if it's THE turning point but, it is a significant turn.
when has the market ever been free?
A completely “free” market is likely incoherent, but under normal terms - probably degrading since the 1970s. And very predictable if wealth can buy you power to change the system.
An hour ago?
Trump doesn't actually stand for basically a single conservative value outside of immigration and somehow he's eaten the entire party
The immigration-baiting isn’t even a conservative position, most of the history of conservatism has been pro-immigration.
Instead it’s simply the answer to the question, “how do you convince the last vestiges of the labor unions to drink poison and vote for the people who openly plan to destroy them.”
In the 2016 primary. Trump was always fiscally heterodox to the old GOP.
They never wanted the free market. They wanted an _unregulated_ market. There's a difference.
They'll settle for an unregulated market. What they really want is a free market for them and their friends, and crippling regulation for their competitors.
> When did conservatives abandon the free market?
You're using terms incorrectly. Conservatism has nothing to do with free market.
The people who care most about free markets are liberals (called libertarians in the US).
Presumably you mean to say "Republicans". And your answer is "under Trump". But it's important to note that Trump merely took the Republican party back to its roots. Traditionally, Republicans were more protectionists than the Democrats. Regan changed that, and Trump reverted.
But what annoys me about people who criticize this change, is that it often comes from people who don't believe in free markets.
---
As a side note, I think the reason Americans use these terms so wrongly is because of the 2 party system. It forces all ideologies into two camps and for Americans "conservatism", "libertarianism", "nationalism", "fascism" are all the same.
Trump ran as on the Republican ticket, he had been a lifelong NYC Democrat up until he ran for president.
Republican != Conservative… and in reality Trump is neither, but at the same time, the type of Democrat he was no longer exists. It’s also a mistake to confuse Republican for Establishment GOP.
>everyone using this technology loses
As someone not using the technology, I'm fine with that :) Intellectual property laundering was never a good thing. Glad we can begone with it.
This doesn't help; customers will switch to a different model.
It just means the government decides who gets to profit off of laundered IP, which is arguably even worse.
I'm pretty sure it's the people paying for it that decide who profits off it.
Intellectual property is not a good thing.
Yeah but doesn't all the ai stuff kinda either way exacerbate the issues we might have with IP? Like, if it wasn't already the case that such laws are fundamentally sided with huge pools of capital who arbitrarily "own" different sequences of bytes, it certainly is now. It's like its trying to destroy intellectual property and then put this deranged hyper-financial game of energy expenditure in its place.
> It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses
Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States government overreach.
It's ironic isn't it? All the marketing of how dangerous and powerful Mythos is and the government went "bet".
Anthropic's marketing is playing 5D chess. 4D was telling everyone it is dangerous, they knew the government would take the bait and shut it down.
Or maybe Anthropic isn't playing chess at all - these models sell themselves they are so useful and the Reddit/HN crowd is just full of larping tech bros commenting conspiracy theories non stop.
Yeah is funny anthropic going overboard with "omg this model is so dangerous guys!!!" and then the US government going "okay... well, that sounds bad, let's ban it".
Serves them right
Should they lie and say the model is not dangerous?
If you're actually worried then do the right thing and don't make the model, or do make the model and admit you are doing it to make money.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it by making the (supposedly) world ending model but also getting on a moral high horse.
It's the hypocrisy and obvious mendacity that's obnoxious to me.
Having said that, OpenAI is just as bad (probably worse) and they're friendly with the admin, so this isn't really a case of any kind of justice unfortunately
False dichotomy. You can make a safe, aligned model that blocks dangerous actions, even at the expense of overblocking benign ones.
You can release the powerful model to companies that will use it to fix instead of break.
Once a technology exists it will be used for good and for ill, you can't create it and put it in a box forever.
If you really think a technology could be dangerous then the only morally correct thing to do is not help to create it.
They're not doing that, so either they're lying about it being dangerous, or they're lying about the fact they care (maybe a bit of both)
This is just a terrible view.
Nuclear can be used for great ill or great good. Today, most actual use is for great good.
By your logic we should have stopped at the discovery of fire.
This is OpenAI and Meta using their leverage over the White House to screw over their competitor.
In this case it was Amazon reporting Fable jailbreak to government
Elaborate please?
It is Amazon who reported the jailbreaks to the government, according to WSJ. Yes, the same Amazon that owns 19% of Anthropic. Hmm.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-halts-access-to-top-ai...
It's Anthropic facing consequences for their years long marketing plays. They're so greedy and narcissistic as a company and culture they believed they were special enough to be excluded from sanction internally, and that their behavior would only affect their competitors or would lead to outcomes positive for themselves: ergo, they get to hold the keys to the castle. Like Dario said in his negotiations with the DoW, he wants a seat at the big boys table. It's all about power for him.
Unfortunately though, they're not smart enough to realize the long term damage to the industry that they're doing without any hint of remorse will negatively affect them and will have the opposite effect: Highlighting how imperative it is we all switch to open-source and remove our reliance entirely from them.
So not only are they going to take the whole industry down out of their own greed and stupidity and ruin it for everyone in the short term, but they're going to put themselves and the other labs out of business in the long term. Well done Anthropic. Well done Dario. You played yourself. 5d chess.
They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.
It's a stupid strategy that will put the rest of the world ahead of the US on AI. Anthropic's value will suffer for it.
Based on this, it seems like the Trump admin would have targeted them even without the "scaremongering":
> To date, the government has only given us verbal evidence of a potential narrow, non-universal jailbreak, which essentially consists of asking the model to read a specific codebase and fix any software flaws. Our understanding is that one potential jailbreak was shared with the government. We have reviewed the report and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the defenders who keep systems safe.
> the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models
Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?
No, he specifically gave a proprietary OpenAI model as an example (unless you meant OpenAI models instead of open source models)
Anthropic is almost solely responsible for the fear narrative around AI at this point. It has been their culture since the beginning, strongly pushing this into the zeitgeist at every opportunity, releasing bogus papers to frame things as highly dangerous and that their AI is a conscious sentient being.
Step 1: "OMG, the AI hacked a researcher eating a sandwhich in the park!"
Step 2: Journalists use that great clickbait to generate profit, which generates publicity for Anthropic
Step 3: Rinse repeat
If the threat of LLMs was treated relative to the actual capabilities of them, and we weren't all being lied to by Anthropic and their army of millions of social media bots and backing media companies and mouthpieces, we'd be going in a much healthier direction. Working out the kinks/supply chain risks and developing sound, long-term countermeasures to the ACTUAL risks.
The only threat to the world is if progress is not open-sourced, democratized and in lockstep with capability. The moment it becomes a scenario of: Only a small group get access to frontier intelligence, is when it gives that small group power over everyone else in the world, and wildly increases the risk of a nuclear level event that WILL be exploited eventually - as the divide between the haves and the have nots accelerates in an exponential fashion. Bad AI is countered with an abundance of good AI that has been used to stay ahead of bad AI. The moment your bad AI outpowers the army of good AI it is game over for humanity. The strength of open-source and open-access AI is the difference between humanities permanent enslavement or extinction versus a prosperous future.
It doesn't help that most of the employees at Anthropic have willingly sold their souls out of short term greed and gaslight themselves into thinking that they're actually doing the right thing to justify their own greed to themselves, while building up an echo-chamber and culture of feel good lies within the company so they can sleep at night, and pat each other on the back. They go along with this because they get paid massive chunks of money from Anthropic, and their shares will be worth more money if Anthropic can swallow the worlds economy at the expense and enslavement of everyone else. What good is that money when you have to sell out humanity in the progress though. You, at Anthropic, is that the legacy you want to leave?
People need to start calling this out before it's far too late. If you work at Anthropic - time to start talking to your colleagues in an honest manner.
It seems like this might not have happened if Anthropic didn't institute the cyber blocks as broadly to also cover pure-defensive use cases?
Because this wouldn't be considered a jailbreak with any other model; which would just do the request.
The difference between OpenAI & Anthropic is that OpenAI didn't do multiple big media pushes about how their models are so scary and dangerous.
OpenAI's models are very good, they have refusals + a government ID verification story for cyber access (I don't think they prevent non-US nationals, but I don't know this). What they don't have is Project Glasswing and all the hand wringing about how they're going to end the world in public.
I hope Anthropic pulls their head out of their ass and just starts acting like a normal company.
You’re telling me this testimony isn’t sincere marketing for how revolutionary and dangerous his product will become?
"My worst fears, are that we cause significant - we the field, the technology, the industry - cause significant harm to the world...If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong and we want to be vocal about that."https://youtu.be/Pn-W41hC764
OpenAI did this back in 2024 several times.
That’s a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few months back too.
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-penta...
Probably a marketing ploy. Inflate the value even more before an IPO, and Daddy Trump and his friends make a few $$$.
It'll be "resolved" within a few days.
Was WWII a marketing ploy to inflate the value of German and Japanese stocks?
The administration should not be able to arbitrarily punish companies they don’t like. Full stop.
We need a neutral regulatory body for AI with objective, predictable standards. Not random bans based on whether the president likes you. Unless GPT 5.6 also gets a ban, this will look extremely bad for the administration.
Our economy depends on fair application of rule of law. Not anti-growth cronyism based on who is friends Trump.
The precedent set here would be broad and scary. Treating any API like an export makes it very easy for the administration to bully companies they disagree with.
I can only imagine how many engineers got fired when fable came out
And now is this going to be a one-off, or routine with every new generation of models?
Is there any reason they couldn't also apply export-control to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?
Every. There is no reason the government will let go the power it has obtained, that is never how it works
There won't be any new generation of models more powerful than Fable since the argument against Fable would apply even more. Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 is the best we'll ever see from this point forward. Soon low cost Chinese models will catch up to those thereby destroying Anthropic and OpenAI's pricing power which will mark the beginning of the end for them too.
you need to be 8yo to believe Chinese are going to give you SOTA models at low prices. being open is not compatible with the Chinese culture.
Chinese here, no racism card here please.
They would have a golden opportunity to inflict damage to a geopolitical adversary. The US economy is being propped up by AI, I'm not sure they'd miss the chance to blow that bubble if they could.
there are ongoing tough competitions between China and America, that is for sure. however, a bold however, it is not in China's interest to see a crashed America. as an export oriented economy, China needs a stable and functioning America to maintain global order, that is how China got free lunch for the last 3 decades.
just imagine a world without the US acting as the world police, you'd be seeing armed conflicts in middle east, Africa, South East Asia, even in Europe and North East Asia. that would make China extremely hard to extract 1 trillion USD trade surplus a year, which is now required for China to maintain employment back at home.
without the US, even for a relatively stable global environment, trade won't be possible as most countries are not capable of providing goods and services wanted by China. Their currencies are literally junk (including Japanese Yen and Euro), Chinese are not going to take those junk in exchange for real goods. Trade is now possible because, by one way or another, those countries have USD to pay. those USD are backed by 300+ million highly productive Americans who repeatedly proved that they can create values in the scale of dozens of trillions a year.
the best part of this whole thing - America is singlehandedly footing the whole bill to provide such trade friendly environment for China for FREE. this is not cold war v2, back in the days of cold war, the US didn't help USSR to such extreme extent.
> being open is not compatible with the Chinese culture.
Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world. Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc. No real restrictions on duping products, so execution often becomes the winning ticket. That's all pretty open and good for consumers.
You could argue they won't allow SOTA models to be exported but it doesn't really have anything to do with Chinese culture not being compatible with openness.
> Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world.
that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open - they know full well that anything made publicly available would be cloned/copied within days.
it is not only a part of the competition common in all countries, there are unique reasons in China - millions of graduate engineers join workforce every single year, there are not that many projects they can work on. starting copying & cloning some existing stuff even at someone's own cost is a pretty effective way to get into the game.
> Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc.
There is this old Chinese saying "Teach your apprentice and your own ruin follows" (教会徒弟饿死师傅), that has been telling a completely different story for thousands of years. When they don't even want to hand over tech know-hows to their own apprentice, why would anyone be expecting them to have the desire to share it publicly?
You can find Chinese sayings for almost any position. It's orientalism to reduce modern Chinese society/culture/economy to proverbs and sayings.
You say that you're Chinese so there's no such stereotyping involved, but actually Chinese people commit this sin against themselves all the time.
己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人
"wishing to stand, one helps others stand; wishing to succeed, one helps others succeed"
> that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open
But the AI labs _are_ often being open. And cloning stuff more generally doesn't really require OSS anyway. Product features are easily cloned in most cases, without any secret knowledge.
It depends on the end goal. Free good enough models are a way to drastically devalue Anthropic and OpenAI. A well timed release of a capable model that can run on obtainable hardware, so that a small/medium company can afford self hosting, has the potential to destroy one or both of these companies. This would narrow down the frontier model oligopoly and give the Chinese government a lot more power beyond its borders.
It really depends on whether the Chinese government wants to make good money or "win" the current AI bubbke.
Are you kidding man? Have you tried the new model for coding? It's absolutely incredible. After using it, I really see why they were so concerned. The jump in my workflows feels as large as the jump from 3.5 to 4o (OpenAI). It's just that good.
Issues I'd been kinda circling around for weeks, long standing errors in some long-running sync operations for a project I'm working on, all solved the same day the model dropped. Just incredible. And it's effectively a lot more token efficient I find as well (less so with sub-agents). Just areas where Opus 4.8 would occassionally get confused or venture down the wrong direction, just doesn't happen nearly as much as with Fable 5.
Like what is everyone who is dissing on this model / Anthropic using day to day? For me it's just an incredible jump in intelligence. So much so and so quickly after the modest bump from 4.8, that I really can understand why they are starting to shout warnings.
It's a huge jump across the board. I was really impressed with its ability to test usability in Claude for Chrome. Very opinionated but in a good way. It was good while it lasted.
Wow unsure why you are getting downvoted. It’s just odd. I just don’t get the skepticism towards this model. It’s released and it’s amazing. The hype was real and I can see why the researchers were anxious about releasing it.
I did not see that?
It's way more _proactive_ than the old models, sometimes in ways it shouldn't really be proactive. But it produces _more_ slop than 4.8, and I have not seen any real breakthroughs from it.
Edit: to give an example, I'm working on integrating a self-hosting auth provider into our app. So I gave it a prompt to create a "bootstrap" script that would create pre-configured settings for the local installation.
Fable did it. And then proceeded (unprompted) to test it by killing the running server, removing the database, re-initializing and (trying) to verify that the bootstrap produced identical results.
Well, yeah. Great. I can see how this "bias for action" works for security research and one-shot projects, not so sure about regular development.
I just tried that with Opus, and it produced a similar bootstrap script but did not start the test by itself.
Ah that I will admit. It gets shit done one way or another haha. This is why a sandboxed environment and a reproducible test DB is key here. I give read only access to my dev DB to my Claude, really removes the temptation that it increasingly has to “cheat”. E.g. doing something hacky and fixing the DB manually in a way that doesn’t solve the problem everywhere.
Personally I love when the AI has this amount of problem solving. But you have to build the environment around it that encourages solving problems right the first time, versus taking the easy way out and hacking out a solution.
It’s just all about constraining the behavior of the LLM into productive and permanent directions. The more advanced it gets, the more it feels like designing engineering processes rather than coding. Personally it’s a fun change of pace and it’s giving me a lot of opportunities to look at the project in working on at a wider lens. I find having to pump out features makes you myopic in a sense. I really miss the control I had over writing it all by hand, but I love just being able to build software. At the end of the day, what do you want? That’s the question I’ve had to grapple recently.
Personally I don’t mind switching gears to the bigger picture of why the software exists and what purpose it serves
This honestly sounds like a tweaked system prompt more than anything. Maybe it is an attempt to make the model appear stronger?
[dead]
I can't tell whether you think Fable/Mythos aren't capable, you think it's good the US government is shutting down this business model of all things for "safety", or both. Either way, ick.
They're enjoying the schadenfreude of Dario "AI is so dangerous, we really need to ban and regulate everyone" Amodej getting his models banned by the US government.
They didn't get banned by the government. The government says they they want to track the Identity of everyone who uses it. Same way they track identity when using an airplane.
Dario cried wolf one too many times, the Trump admin believed there was a wolf, and now Anthropic users can't use Mythos or Fable. It is effectively banned until the government says otherwise.
It's a ban until they add ID tracking / face tracking. That is worse than banning it. It is only effectively a ban because so far they refuse to do that.
This is what Anthropic wanted and they want this to apply to all other frontier models providers (including themselves) that release powerful models.
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
They ultimately got what they wanted.
> They ultimately got what they wanted.
No, it's not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they wanted "a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles."
They begged to be regulated and now they're being regulated. The company doesn't get to pick and choose the exact form of the regulations they get and in this case they got more than they bargained for. Maybe next time be more careful with the messaging.
Is your argument that anyone saying "there should be laws about this" should spell out "and we mean actual laws, not arbitrary misapplication of existing law by one petulant executive"? I don't know how they could have been more clear - they've suggested industry-wide regulation and even what shape that could take.
Actually, they got even more than what they wanted:
* Free marketing before the IPO, demonstrating how already powerful their frontier models are.
* Governments to intervene in the rollout of these frontier models and blocking their access to whoever they want.
* A strong reason to apply these further restrictions onto releasing powerful open weight models to the public. (which is entirely a business threat to them.)
Given that they accepted funding from the Gulf states [0] despite it conflicting with their own "principles", I think we are well beyond the point of what they write / say vs to what they are actually doing.
This drama just tells us that the government declared them as the winner that has the most powerful model.
[0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/anthropic-to-seek...
Yes, reducing your TAM by roughly 8 billion people is exactly the kind of marketing you want before your IPO. /s
Opus 4.8 is still available to everyone, and the export ban applied specifically to their new Fable / Mythos models. But nice try though.
This sort of attention is exactly what they would to showcase the powerful capabilities of their latest models.
Serving Opus 4.8 isn't worth a trillion+ valuation.
The valuation of the AI labs is based on continual improvements of their models.
Open weight models are going to catch up to Opus 4.8 and at that point the model is a pure commodity.
> Serving Opus 4.8 isn't worth a trillion+ valuation. > The valuation of the AI labs is based on continual improvements of their models.
While I do agree, no-one here made the initial claim on their valuation and especially suggesting that "Serving Opus 4.8" alone was worth a trillion+ valuation.
> Open weight models are going to catch up to Opus 4.8 and at that point the model is a pure commodity.
Good. We should all hope that happens.
Except in one week or a month new Chinese models gonna be released thats might just be better or much cheaper than Opus 4.8.
That is Anthropic's problem, and that's good for competition.
This is nonsense. What Anthropic have been campaigning for, since the beginning, is a principled rule-based audit of model releases.
Now we are getting reactive, arbitrary and capricious enforcement; rules rushed out the door; classified evals. The worst of both worlds.
Half of the opposition to any regulation is the risk that it gets misused.
So you agree this is not what Anthropic wanted?
Yep and they also want to only exempt models below some level of compute or capability from this process. In other words, if an open model ends up being competitive, they’ll use regulations to ban it.
> They ultimately got what they wanted.
They got what they claim they wanted for PR purposes. Like when a billionaire says they should be taxed more, or when Sam Altman says the public should get some of that AI wealth.
But they never thought it would actually happen.
Oops.
I would more easily guess that it is a revenge of Trump for Anthropic humiliating him when he wanted to use it without control for military purpose. And indeed it used against them their own marketing allegations.
Note that the US military is almost the only customer that Fable and Mythos could safely be sold to while complying with this directive.
Maybe revenge, but it's a common play to fire a shot across the bow to create leverage in other areas.
They never claimed to be “so much ahead”, they just claimed to be honest.
Which, to be clear, does not mean they are actually honest.
Pay? This is the best marketing they could have hoped for.
Yup, getting Cartmanland marketing vibes here. “It’s the best theme park ever, and you can’t come!” does wonders for creating demand.
I wouldn’t the surprised if all this were actually orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.
Brilliant analogy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuG7_acmdA
Doubtful. Fable 5 is insanely good it’ll sell itself. No need for unscrupulous advertising tactics.
What is a “foreign national” is more what I’m wondering. Like is it a “Non-US Citizen”? Do US citizens abroad count?
Foreign national is anyone who doesn't have legally recognized citizenship of the USA. So citizens living abroad aren't barred, nor would dual citizens be.
> What is a “foreign national” is more what I’m wondering.
The following quoted text is from the Definitions section of 8 USC § 1101, which is reproduced at [0]. (Though, you will probably have to scroll up a bit to be able to read subsection (a)(21), which is the thing I'm linking to.)
From this, it's fairly clear that a "foreign national" is someone owing permanent allegiance to a foreign (that is, non-US) state. What's not immediately clear to me is whether a US citizen can also be a "foreign national", [1] and how that would affect access to things from which foreign nationals are barred. [2]EDIT: For a more official source of this information, you might be able to check out [3] and/or [4]. After examining and interacting with those pages, one might see why one might go to an unofficial source for casual inspection of this information.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_21
[1] I think they can be.
[2] I'm very uncertain.
[3] <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...>
[4] <https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapter12/subc...>
A "foreign national" is any person who is not a US Citizen:
"The United States Department of State defines a “foreign national” as anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder." [0]
A foreign national is a person or organization who is not a citizen of the United States, and who is a citizen of a foreign country. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) uses the term "alien" to refer to a person who is not a United States citizen, and does not use the term "foreign national."[1]
[0] https://www.orc.msstate.edu/faq/what-department-states-defin...
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreign_national
I also found this: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary
I owe allegiance to no state. I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the world.
It's kind of a weird definition. I would guess most people's nationality is more an accident of birth than anything else.
There is a chance they'll lose on some income if it takes longer.
Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of competitors.
Anthropic has been angling for regulatory capture this entire time, to an even greater extent than OpenAI.
Y’all really have convinced yourselves that people in the industry are far, far smarter than they are, and far more manipulative than they are.
You see the state of the country and you think it’s a nefarious master plan instead of a bunch of opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated populace who forget to vote or believe stupid slogans on TV.
Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out????
Anthropic in particular has been angling for regulatory capture (with themselves in control, of course) pretty explicity.
"It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI."[1]
Anthropic is calling for regulation. For example they endorsed CA SB-53 that even OpenAI and Google thought was too much: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-is-endorsing-sb-53
They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).
They might not want this specific action, but they do want regulation on their own terms. That really is regulatory capture.
> Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out
They don't think is is "idiot stuff" - they are doing it openly and shouting to everyone who will listen! Read Dario's latest essay[1]:
> Many policymakers are showing increased openness to taking action, and it's been encouraging to see our peers come around to the same positions we've been advocating for over the past few years.
[snip]
> Thus, in 2025, Anthropic supported transparency legislation, helping to pass SB 53 in California, RAISE in NY, SB 315 in Illinois (in early 2026), and advocating for a transparency standard at the federal level.
[snip]
> It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI.
> I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action.
> 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.
I'm not sure why you think they don't want to be "found out"!
> They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).
Whenever I hear some octogenarian senator babble about the evils of distillation I assume Amodei (or maybe Altman) fed them the script, word for word.
> opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated populace
Over worked and over stimulated is the intentional method and means these people well aware of the neurological consequences rely on
Let's leave aside the "smarter" part, since I made no claim to the effect and I don't think it's very relevant in the first place.
Do you really not think that people like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei angle for regulatory capture? It happens in every other industry, from automobiles to tax preparation software. Why do you think that AI is any different?
Let's see their private journals, private conversations, messages to peers, all meetings and every side conversation, and then tell me its unintentional.
Thats incredibly infuriating to hear someone say.
Obviously no one is absolute control of everything but physics is essentially shows nothing other than information determinism. There has to have been a thought of intention in the minds of these people as they play in the largest arena publicly.
"No one is doing it intentionally because I think theyre dumber then I think other people think they are"
"They're taking advantage of people intentionally"
"People dont have political power to do anything about their victory laps"
It’s almost like you haven’t read the project 2025 doc.
Hint: it can be both.
don't think so; retail investors would see this as a barrier that the government can place anytime they want, and assume that government intervention is constantly lurking in the shadows.
I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else, because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT 5.5.
No it’s not. A company that finds itself the target of potentially crippling government intervention is not an attractive investment.
It might be if all you're seeking is large-cap stocks with lots of volatility you can leverage that are here to stay for the long haul. Also, the market doesn't seem to believe that Trump will be in power forever.
Would be funny if they got themselves nationalized.
I mean, better safe than sorry, right Dario?
No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable.
> "No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable."
You simply cannot apply any sort of actual logic to the reasoning of the current U.S. government's actions... They just "do stuff" because they feel like it, with no clear thought whatsoever of any potential consequences that may occur.
> "No way the US is going to tariff the entire world regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable."
It's Madman theory all the way down.
The CEO of Anthropic himself has said AI is like a nuclear bomb when justifying export controls on Nvidia chips. How many private companies control nuclear bombs?
They took 10% of Intel and the only reaction was my stocks increasing in value 5x.
Taking a 10% stake in a company is far from nationalization. And the big increase in Intel's stock price happened months after that.
It is literally partially nationalising though, isn’t it?
This is how the UK government got the banks through the 2008 financial crisis.
They bought the shares on the open market. They didn't seize the company at gunpoint.
Why would you think nationalising is a violent process?
As soon as the nation owns enough stock to profit from government decisions (and to compound the influence of those decisions) you essentially have a partially nationalised business.
10% of OpenAI might easily be enough to reach a meaningful "partially nationalised" threshold, once you factor in any holdings in federal pension plans and the active level of government policymaking.
It is very clear Sam Altman wants this, too, because this whole "take 10%" thing in Trump's mind was his idea back in early 2025, and OpenAI have been following up on it recently.
They want the US government to be the bag holder.
So if USgov bought 51% at market value you’d be ok with that?
Time to fire up the printers I guess.
No they didn’t. After Trump started making noise about their CEO, Lip-bu Tan, being Chinese they then took the shares at a “…discount to the current market price.”[1]
And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet
> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1]
This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel-goverment-equity-stake...
???
The government had passed a law appropriating funds to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing in the US and spent some of it buying intel stock. How is that the government seizing Intel at gunpoint? I mean aside from the libertarian argument that the taxation necessary to raise those funds is theft?
Did you miss the part where it was already awarded to them, but the Trump admin then made it conditional?
Taking any % is partially nationalizing it and there was no negative capital flight. And 10% is a pretty significant portion.
> Trump says his team will 'look into' US taking stake in AI companies[1]
Yes, there is a gap between "taking a stake" and nationalizing one, but..
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-says-his-team-will-lo...
Trump has already (with Altman directly egging him on) talked about the US taking a share in (i.e. partially nationalising) the AI companies. Has he not called a meeting about this next week?
[dead]
You call it scare-mongering. Others, serious thinkers and leaders in the AI and national security space, believe, maybe not scare-mongering enough.
AI is a national security issue. Best accept that as fact, or you won't see it coming.
Anthropic and US Government, there can be only one right in this situation.
I think David Sacks is right, if you are saying you are building nuclear bombs, then prepared to be regulated like one.
There is no eating it while having it
I agree completely. If these things are so dangerous that they turn every person into an advanced persistent thread actor, capable of causing untold cyber destruction (oh, and they can make bio weapons etc), then they should be treated like the weapons they are.
> Anthropic and US Government, there can be only one right in this situation.
And just to be clear, that's a maximum of one right in this situation.
Yeah, LLMs are a national security issue on par with spellcheck.
LLMs are piloting EM-proof kamakazi drones and destroying logistics networks today.
And gps guided missiles were doing that since the 80s. Humans are already really good at killing each other. Yeah it sucks the tech will be used for that.
But it changes little.
iirc consumer grade GPS chips purposely become less accurate if they find themselves moving at high speed.
Drones do not need to mov at high speed to be effective, as cam feeds from FPVs in the Russo-Ukrainian war have demonstrated
The real threat isn't the drones, it's the ability to generate a target bank. Historically militaries that are not just carpet bombing have been bottlenecked by target selection, humans can only review and authorize so many strikes. Now the AI will select the targets and the bottleneck moves to how many bombs you can build.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
https://youtu.be/CHLFl26p7Po?is=j-Z1fiCCa-Q_gQS5
That video makes a lot of claims that sound reasonable, but doesn't provide data to back it up.
For example, in the first 30 seconds, he says that at the beginning of the Iran War, AI was used to strike 900 targets in 12 hours. Which he calls "unprecedented" but then never backs up.
For context, in the 1991 Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm" the U.S. struck about 1500 targets[1][2][3] in 12 hours.
[1] https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2021/02/a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg&t=401s [3] https://gulfwar.org/gulf-war-1991-timeline-desert-storm/ -
You're slightly off the mark here.
They are NOT "em-proof" --- what they are is electronic warfare immune.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomou... Published this year, but talking about a trial 2 years ago.
Blocking any leading edge AI model changes nothing. We (humans) have a long history of determined attackers finding creative and unexpected solutions.
What the AI we have, the stuff that is already PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, is good enough to shrink the time for developing one of those creative solutions into a working tool/weapon.
Edit: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/12/8038963/ They are using ai for terminal guidance on Russian logistics (red vs green reticle if you choose to watch the video). Considering the progress on YOLO (and running on sub watt processors) it being able to do this work "onboard" should be shocking to no one.
Shh...you'll burst the bubble of the folks who think that LLMs are toy stochastic parrots...
Can you share any of these serious thinkers?
Nobody with even a modicum of understanding of how LLMs work believes any of this. These 'serious thinkers' are just grifters preying on the feeble minded.
Hinton and Bengio don't understand how LLMs work?
Right now it's basically this easy: 1. apex domain 2. ???? 3. critical PII exposure
There is /so/ much stuff on the internet that just needed someone to spend enough time on it.