[fc417fc802]

Why should anyone get to determine that? Do people really want us to move to an exclusionary guild system? I thought the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security.

[tredre3]

> the experience with proprietary versus open source over the past 30 years had driven home the point that closed ecosystems are almost always far worse for security.

Has it? Can you prove it? I've been using computers for almost 40 years. I've seen foss-enthusiasts repeat that claim ad-nauseam, without proof. All they ave is the vague, hand-wavy, "millions of people read the code!!11".

I use both proprietary and foss software. I write both proprietary and foss software. I have not noticed a meaningful difference in security.

[fc417fc802]

Then I think you haven't been paying attention. We regularly see examples of companies attempting to cover up vulnerabilities, attacking security researchers, dragging their feet on fixes, etc. Meanwhile you can easily see for yourself how long it takes various FOSS projects to get patched and often what the attitude of the devs is.

You can also take an aggregate view. Presumably skilled developers working on major projects should be expected to have similar rates of security issues. So compare CVE frequency between various FOSS and closed source projects.

[lazide]

Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.

[estearum]

Vendors choose what capabilities they create and sell literally all day every day.

[fc417fc802]

A more charitable interpretation might be that a guild would not be expected to passively allow such a situation to continue to exist. I think you'd expect a guild to directly contract for the desired tools or failing that to move into production themselves.

[estearum]

Sure! And Anthropic isn't preventing other people from making offensive cyber models.

"The guild" is absolutely free to go seek other vendors if Anthropic declines to sell to them.

[lazide]

I take it you didn’t see the announcement where Anthropic is trying to get all new development banned, so they are ‘sole source’? [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/04/worlds-most-...]

[estearum]

Regulatory capture: A vendor using regulation to prevent potential competitors from producing or selling competitive goods or services

What we're discussing in this thread: A customer compelling a vendor to produce and sell a specific good or service

Do you think these are similar?

The fact that Anthropic is doing one thing (regulatory capture) is entirely irrelevant as to whether they're allowed to engage in a completely different thing (declining to sell their services/products to specific people).

[ambicapter]

You should read that sentence as

> Additionally, even if there is a guild - no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what [the guild's] capabilities were, that would be insanely dumb.

[estearum]

But that's not true. Again: Vendors absolutely pick and choose what their customers' capabilities are. Regardless of whether "the guild allows them to." Guilds can't force people to make or sell tools against their will – obviously.

The analog you're trying to describe doesn't exist, which is Anthropic saying nobody else can make and sell an offensive model to "the guild."

[lazide]

Guilds often very much did assert what people could and could not build - historically.

Against their will.

Historically that is a major reason why guilds existed, actually.

It’s an extremely modern invention that corps have these type of power over their customers.

[estearum]

You've lost the thread.

Here's your original claim: "no guild ever let a vendor pick and choose what their capabilities were"

A carpenter's guild can prevent other people from doing carpentry. That is not what's being discussed here.

A carpenter's guild cannot force a horseshoe maker to begin making hammers. That is what's being discussed.

Your initial claim was analogous to "never before has a horseshoe maker been able to decline making hammers when the carpenter's guild needed hammers"

Obviously they have and any other state of affairs would be flatly insane.