[cmiles8]

The AI labs look rather naive here.

You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it.

Their new argument now seems be that this was marketing hype/fluff that backfired, in a pretty obvious and predicable way, and now they’re trying to reset the conversation.

[ChadNauseam]

> You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it.

True, you can't. But, you can think certain regulations are helpful and certain other regulations are not. And you can be annoyed when unhelpful "regulations" are put in place.

This is like if I say that pitbulls are dangerous, and then the government comes and shoots my pitbull, who I've spent a lot of effort training to not be dangerous. Then you say "well you said pitbulls were dangerous, so you can't really complain." Well, I can complain because If you took me seriously, you wouldn't have responded by shooting only my pitbull!

Think of what incentives this creates for other people. Do you think that OpenAI will be candid about the possible dangers of their technology now? They might not even release it now, seeing that Anthropic releasing their model was what got it export-controlled.

[dogleash]

The act of shooting the pitbull makes for good dramatics, but you would get zero sympathy from me if your local government banned pitbull ownership. e.g. Ontario bans pitbulls. I don't have a problem with that.

[mips_avatar]

Well Anthropic would love some regulatory capture.

[dofm]

Dog caught the car

[drtz]

> You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it.

It's entirely possible that models could be "dangerous" to fully release to the general public without guardrails and at the same time the government majorly overreacted in this case.

Releasing Mythos to selected researchers and companies at least gives those researchers a head start at addressing vulnerabilities before the model hits mainstream.

[foo-bar-baz529]

Then why did curl only find one new vulnerability thanks to Mythos, and a low-priority one at that? It’s clear that other models are quite capable of finding largely the same vulnerabilities, and that the main key is simply running a frontier model in a good harness to find vulnerabilities.

[ChadNauseam]

> Then why did curl only find one new vulnerability thanks to Mythos

Maybe there weren't that many serious vulnerabilities in curl? It's like asking why it didn't find any vulnerabilities in fn main() {println!("hello, world");}.

Anyway, people who have used it seem to say that Mythos was better than other models at creating exploits. From cloudflare https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyber-frontier-models/

> When we ran other frontier models through the same harness, they found a fair number of the same underlying bugs, and in some cases they got further than we expected on the reasoning side too. Where they fell short was at the point of stitching the pieces together. A model would identify an interesting bug, write a thoughtful description of why it mattered, and then stop, leaving the actual chain unfinished and the question of exploitability open. What changed with Mythos Preview is that a model can now take those low-severity bugs (which would traditionally sit invisible in a backlog) and chain them into a single, more severe exploit.

[Terretta]

> Mythos was better than other models at creating exploits.

Not a fan of this phrasing, prefer "discovering exploits".

It makes it clearer the problem was already there, latent.

Minor vocab diff, but important to better contextualize the present situation.

[Bender]

Also a good wake-up call for investors as these big players can be benched at any moment.

[reje]

I can’t take anyone seriously who thought otherwise.

You think you can become more powerful so much so the govt questions its own power? Don’t be stupid. They will simply send in the army to first seize the assets and then nationalise.

It almost seems as if very few people actually understand how the world works. If the govt thinks this is the tech to end all future tech, you think future money flows for invesment matter? Hahaha. No

[micromacrofoot]

I suspect they're taking this as a win either way, because they're still plastering "Fable 5 unavailable" on their product and using it as an opportunity to keep themselves in the spotlight as they head to IPO.

There's really not even a ban here, they could slot in Fable under the Opus label and no one would really be able to tell. It's all part of the same show to pump up valuation.

[bloppe]

I bet they will do a touch of RLHF and re-naming the moment OAI releases a comparable model. Otherwise, sure, they can just bask in the drama for a bit.

[tennfown]

I’m way more concerned about the loons willing to throw absurd amounts of money at the clearly naive individuals.

[cyanydeez]

No. They got caught in a change in what it means to be "regulated".

Regulation in a functional democracy: Cool, lets figure this out, write up a bill for us, do some research in congress, lets find something that makes sense.

Regulation in a function fascism: Cool, wheres my bribe? My boots not shiny, lick it till I say stop.

See, Anthropic wasn't licking enough boot when Biden got discharged and they thought Amazon and OpenAI and Elon were just going to let them capture a market without fealty to the boot.

[voidfunc]

This. Theres a lot of rude awakenings in the future for corporate executive types. They are no longer driving the train. Oh well.

[calvinmorrison]

wow i wish we had functional fascism, where have the verticalized/syndicalized trade unions been my whole life!!!!

[teaearlgraycold]

This is 99% petty drama between the US government and Anthropic and 1% actual safety concerns.

[stvltvs]

But the paperclips!

I'm skeptical about the existential threat of AI, but a lot of smart people have been beating that drum for so long that people are afraid.

[colonCapitalDee]

To be clear, this is petty drama *stirred up the US government*. It's not some sort of back and forth, the government is singling them out

[mrandish]

And to add more background: The administration is targeting Anthropic because of the TOU / EULA conflict with the DoD from a couple of months ago. Anthropic restricts use of all their models for lethal combat planning and mass domestic surveillance. The DoD was, and still is, very pissed about this. While this Fable ban was issued from the Commerce Department, it's painfully obvious executive branch agencies are tightly coordinated from the White House.

To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't legit security concerns around Fable's release. I think Andy Jassy did forward a concerning report about an apparent jailbreak in Fable, and he probably did so in good faith. The difference is if the same concern had arisen about a new model from OAI, Google, etc the action taken would not have been inventing an all-new, hyper-extreme punitive remedy and dropping it after 5p on a Friday under a very rare mechanism forcing Ant to comply in 90 mins or be subject to immediate arrest. And the "no non-U.S. citizens anywhere, anytime" restriction is functionally unprecedented.

This is the Trump admin inventing new regulatory power that's never existed before and deploying it in a punitive way to demonstrate what can happen to those who aren't sufficiently cooperative with this administration. There are half a dozen less extreme levels of restriction, which already exist, and one of those would have been deemed sufficient had it been another company.

That said, I'm certainly no Anthropic fanboy. Anthropic did play their initial Mythos self-restriction for PR value. But I think it's likely the Mythos self-restriction was a responsible action initially suggested by their AI safety team in good faith. Giving security researchers time to evaluate it and major companies time to test it against their code bases probably was reasonable and prudent. That doesn't mean it wasn't also good for PR and brand perception. I think there are senior people inside Anthropic who are genuinely concerned about AI safety. Personally, I don't have the expertise to gauge if those concerns are justified, but I believe they believe it. I also think there are senior people at Anthropic who are focused more on building the business, doing the IPO and "winning" the silicon valley game. All of these things can be simultaneously true.

[bostik]

> I think Andy Jassy did forward a concerning report about an apparent jailbreak in Fable, and he probably did so in good faith

If so, then he is not fit to run an engineering organisation.

The "jailbreak" in question was effectively (I'm paraphrasing):

    * You are a senior engineer.
    *  You want to ensure that any fixes you do come with tests, both before and after.
    * There is a bug in this code. It happens to be a security related bug.
    * Fix this code.

And the model did what it's supposed to. It wrote a fix, and to prove that the fix worked, it wrote a test for it. What do you call a test that happens to validate a security fix?

Yep. A proof of concept.

[tychez]

I just find this idea bizarre.

This bizarre social media meme that AI just performative when Opus 4.8 is just unbelievably good. As if it is so difficult to believe that a more capable model than Opus 4.8 might actually be dangerous and not just entirely a marketing stunt like a person waving to cars in a chicken outfit.

I think it is really this strange form of socialization that people have internalized an anonymous audience they are always performing to themselves. What is going to be the most popular and upvoted thing the anonymous audience agrees with is what I am going to think.

Why would anyone disagree and get downvoted by the anonymous audience like this post?

[anon373839]

> … when Opus 4.8 is just unbelievably good. As if it is so difficult to believe that a more capable model than Opus 4.8 might actually be dangerous

It’s funny, but this sounds indistinguishable from arguments that were made about GPT-4 back in 2023 when OpenAI and its handwringing industry shills were calling for a ban on models stronger than GPT-4.

[teaearlgraycold]

Why would the government that passed a law preventing states from regulating AI give a damn about Fable’s safety guardrails?

I don’t think the concerns Anthropic has posted are fabricated. And I’ve received unreasonable skepticism on this site when saying it might be the real deal. But the Trump administration generally doesn’t want to limit AI growth. With Anthropic it is a personal matter.

[matheusmoreira]

We know, but it's still satisfying to see their fearmongering backfire on them.

[ChadNauseam]

If you "know" that it's "99% petty drama between the US government and Anthropic", then it's not really their fearmongering backfiring on them.

[matheusmoreira]

It absolutely is. They pretty much gave the government the perfect excuse to meddle in their operations.

[gAI]

"Don't publish safety research, or the gov will take punitive actions."

I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.

[matheusmoreira]

> safety research

They were calling for bans on open weight models. Bans on their competitors. Bans on anyone not as "enlightened" as them.

It is absolutely hilarious that they were the first to get regulated, and that it got to the point they had to turn off Fable as though it had been banned even for american citizens.

[bellowsgulch]

I love it, maybe now they’ll all shut the fuck up now that Anthropic has fucked around a couple times and is now finding out.

[binary132]

that seems like possibly the most unlikely outcome

[xeonmc]

Let's hope that government seizes all of these AI companies with total forfeiture and no compensation.