> We’re proposing stronger regulation of the technology. We’re proposing giving the government the ability to, again in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology.
Anthropic has alleged that this model is much more dangerous than other currently available models. Their CEO has said so publicly multiple times. It's like asking why cesium isn't banned if nuclear missiles are banned.
(whether Mythos is actually that dangerous is beside the point; considering that Anthropic claims that it is, it makes sense to regulate it)
You're correct, yet it's also a fact that Anthropic was attempting regulatory capture in order to limit open weight models, cripple their competition and solidify their market position. Nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer Schadenfreude of the situation. Their self-serving fearmongering had the most hilariously unexpected result possible.
Maybe. But I disagree in general with "nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer schadenfreude of the situation". Schadenfreude is a description of a common human impulse that is not a good impulse!
Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm gonna make an exception. These are billionaires who campaign against open weight models. Their misfortunes are our freedom.
Nope, if everyone makes exceptions for the people that specifically annoy them, then there will always be some exception for everybody. Much better to endeavor not to give into your own vices, even the understandable ones.
You can come up with and advocate for a policy to be evenly applied to all the billionaires whose "misfortunes are our freedom", instead of supporting this corrupt favoritism.
Arbitrary enforcement of a regulations is against the principles of administrative law and gives rise to a cause of action that can set aside the governments action. So all regulation has that as an explicit assumption.
There is also a case that it violates due process because anthropic wasn’t provided adequate notice before enforcement or an opportunity to challenge, respond, or take steps to comply.
There is latitude for compelling state interests and national security is one with the widest latitude and potentially one that counts can’t review. But the court of public opinion may draw the inference that this is direct retaliation for refusing to make the models available for autonomous weapons and spying.
They proposed a plan to ensure their dominance of the space and to cripple any competitors using regulation as the weapon. So I’m not going to feel sorry for them and their temporary plight