[LoganDark]

> The entire Anthropic origin story is rooted in the founders’ belief that OpenAI wasn’t taking safety seriously enough; the company believes that only they can control AI, and that because they uniquely care about safety, they are justified in trying to control everyone else, up to and including the U.S. government.

Anthropic believes they have the responsibility to guard their tools from mis-use. That is all. They are not trying to "control" anything or anyone. They do however decide what they think is mis-use.

[horsawlarway]

I'm going to challenge this thought.

I think assuming you have the ability to guard a tool (that you're "selling" for profit) from mis-use is the definition of "controlling behavior".

It's the kind of ethically myopic take that can only really exist in this new digital age - where tools aren't actually sold, they're just digitally rented.

The most telling part of the "control" narrative is that they happily classify "competition" as mis-use. We're headed back to serfdom on a speedrun.

[LoganDark]

I don't always consider ethics at all in logic, so I guess you can call it ethically myopic.

Installing safeguards to prevent a tool from being used for certain things is a perfectly natural and common thing to do when you are providing the tool as a service. For example, blocking VPNs and open proxies from accessing a free service if those are a major source of spam and abuse. Note that Anthropic never provided the model for offline use in a form that includes DRM -- they are simply safeguarding the service that provides access to the hosted model. The only ethical concern I see here is that some of their safeguards are ones I wouldn't personally agree with, and in a world where dependence on a model is expected it can become an issue if the model refuses to perform in some cases, etc., but that doesn't automatically mean the refusal itself is unethical unless that issue was known and expected (and unless the alternative is not bigger, worse bads)

Also note you are not even "digitally renting" anything. This is the exact same type of thing as, say, real humans in real life refusing to perform services for certain clients or under certain circumstances. Networking makes it possible to decouple some of these things, but that doesn't magically make it renting or automatically turn a refusal to perform services into an attempt to control clients. Just the same as I can choose to refuse any request, which does not automatically constitute attempted control over the asker. There can be ethical concerns about whether my refusal causes problems that I'm obligated to avoid (and whether or not such obligation exists), but that doesn't automatically contaminate the refusal itself unless I have knowledge of and intend the bad.

To use a much more relevant example, Anthropic's refusal to allow its models to be used for war (among other things) does not constitute any attempt to prevent war. It's only a refusal to assist in it. That's not some unfair, unethical attempt at controlling the government, that's just Anthropic not wanting to be responsible for assisting in war.

[horsawlarway]

Where do you draw the line here?

What happens when your car stops working because you're driving a tesla, but you're working on EVs for Honda or Ford?

What happens when your macbook stops working, because you decided to commit to changes to ARM software, or RISC-V?

Tools should be neutral. The idea that a tool can only be wielded in a manner that its manufacturer approves of is... scary.

That's a real quick hop and a jump to a really, really ugly spot, societally speaking.

And sure - technically Anthropic is selling a service, but even that idea makes me quietly upset. The only reason they don't sell a product as a tool itself is that they have more control over the model as a service, and expect to be able to extract even more profit from their customers with this route.

---

My real hope is that open models FUCKING CRUSH them. Because almost nothing is scarier than a self-righteous, moral zealot.

[LoganDark]

> What happens when your car stops working because you're driving a tesla, but you're working on EVs for Honda or Ford?

> What happens when your macbook stops working, because you decided to commit to changes to ARM software, or RISC-V?

These sound similar, but aren't the same thing I'm talking about. It's more similar to a rideshare company refusing to serve you, or a cloud PC cutting your access.

It's not the same thing as DRM, which is when invasive malware attempts to control what you do with your devices -- your property -- and your resources, that you own. A car that can be shut off remotely, or that can detect competitive conditions and cease operation, is not the same as a hosted service refusing to have you. It is DRM.

Likewise, a MacBook that stops working based on your affiliations or your activity is not the same either. It is DRM. (Technically, Apple Activation Lock is DRM. So are locked Android bootloaders that can't be flashed with custom verified-boot signing keys, etc.)

When you're using someone else's private resources, someone else's private infrastructure, by default they have the right to simply no longer serve you, at any time.

DRM, by contrast, is when a machine or software you already own decides it will no longer function for you.

Yes, this is scary. We are already confronting this right now. Faceless corporations abruptly cut your access, or ban you for life from really important things. PayPal steals your money and pockets it instead of giving it back. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or whatever) gone because they said so. It's awful. It ruins lives.

But this happens because you need to draw a different line. Not whether one should be allowed to refuse services ever, but when. It's not okay that PayPal can steal tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or more from you with no recourse, just because something looked suspicious, and you'll never know what it was even if you bankrupt yourself with arbitration costs (since their terms of service say you are simply not allowed to sue them anymore, and for some reason companies are allowed to just say this now and have it be legally binding).

A refusal at that point can be devastating, especially when it's for no fucking reason. Or when it's for a completely shitty and unjust reason, like in banning all accounts that have been involved in buying or selling adult content. There are cases where you can ruin someone's life by suddenly refusing to serve them with no recourse, and those are the cases that shouldn't be allowed to continue.

So push for that. Businesses shouldn't all have to serve every customer, but they shouldn't be able to just suddenly ruin someone's life. That's the scary part.

> The only reason they don't sell a product as a tool itself

...it's not the only reason. You can't exactly run trillion-parameter-scale models on the kinds of hardware people tend to already have in practice. And who's gonna pay tens of thousands of dollars up-front for their own inference hardware for the thing? (If you sold it as a hardware product.)

> My real hope is that open models FUCKING CRUSH them.

I would like this too!

[felixgallo]

it's a pretty ridiculous stretch to attribute them thinking that OpenAI wasn't taking safety seriously enough (which is, among other things, a little bit evident from the fact that they no longer have a safety team at all) into asserting that they want to control the US government.