Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by trjordan 43 days ago
Color me unsurprised.

Anthropic ran a weeks-long roadshow on how powerful Mythos is. They pointed to the danger, their controls, the capabilities, and practically begged the world to be scared of it.

Simultaneously, the current US regime realized there was a way to demand fealty from the AI labs. If they're so dangerous, don't we need to see them first? That will cost you, obviously. Standard extortion from the government, at this moment in time.

The labs get their marketing; the white house gets its pseudo-bribe. I hope nobody involved is confused about how we ended up here.

2 comments

Yeah, I saw several instances of important folks taking the Anthropic promotional campaign too seriously and this is what they got in return. I'd say internally people are cursing whoever's idea that was because clearly scaring people backfired.
I would wager they're cheering, because this builds the moat they don't otherwise have. Want to do business in America? Get government-approved. Can't afford the regulatory fees, or your government won't let you submit to foreign programs? Good luck!
Yes, this has been a steady play from the start. From the skynet fears, to the safety fears, now the it's to powerful fears. All of these have been a play to get the government to lock out any smaller or foreign competitors and build a moat where there otherwise would be none.
What extortion are you claiming?

Are you claiming there will be a fee?

> What extortion are you claiming?

Universities: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/29/nx-s1-5559293/trump-settlemen...

Companies: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/extortionary-intel-stake-s...

Law firms: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-law-firms--deals-wi...

Media: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/business/media/paramount-...

Why would AI companies be any different?

> Are you claiming there will be a fee?

I'd be more concerned with "your model can't be too woke" regulatory scenarios.

> I'd be more concerned with "your model can't be too woke" regulatory scenarios.

Honestly that's exactly where my mind went. We already see the current administration trying to censor free speech (e.g. Jimmy Kimmel, blocking/restricting press access to the White House unless you are pro-Trump).

I'm afraid of the potential to move in the direction of what we see in China where queries to LLMs referencing things like Tianenmen Square are censored (at best).

I'm not american but it seems like americans are MORE free to speak their minds now than before in terms of being banned/silenced by dominating online platforms
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I get the sense you don't have enough information as to what's going on here (nothing wrong with that, I've been trying to tune out myself).

Regardless: "...an increasing number of travelers report being questioned about legally protected online speech when crossing the border."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/travel/airport-border-pho...

I am saying it "seems like americans are MORE free to speak their minds now than before in terms of being banned/silenced by dominating online platforms".

Previously you could not post about certain subjects around covid, ivermectin, anything not in line with woke ideology, political scandals. Accounts would be banned. Communities were shut down on Reddit. High profile figures were banned from Twitter. Now you can post whatever you like on most of these platforms. That's not just me who thinks that by the way, it's a widely discussed thing. Zuckerberg even cited government pressure around content suppression and censorship. Do you disagree?

The government literally removed research into trans-fats because of their transphobia. Much free speech
> I'm afraid of the potential to move in the direction of what we see in China where queries to LLMs referencing things like Tianenmen Square are censored (at best).

We are already there.

"Canva admits its AI tool removed 'Palestine' from designs: https://gizmodo.com/canva-admits-its-ai-tool-removed-palesti...

Or your model is not "woke enough"
I have very little patience for bothsidesism at this point.
Your side is not the only side.
Obviously.

"Bothsidesism" posits that the two sides are broadly similar. The last few years have debunked that concept pretty conclusively.

why? Most regulations (ADA, affirmative action, etc.) fall into the "not woke enough" category of model regulation. Current administration aside, complaints of this sort are more likely. It’s absurd, really, to believe there would be a regulation governing a model being too woke; regulation itself is woke
> Most regulations (ADA, affirmative action, etc.) fall into the "not woke enough" category of model regulation

For sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. Those rules are still structured as laws, with boundaries and legal recourse. The precedent being set, that the President gets “voluntary” deference from private companies, is un-American and will be abused by the left.

The ADA isn't about wokeness. It's about being able to live in society with a disability.