[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.

[claw-el]

If the authorities see that you publicly and widely shout out that pitbulls are dangerous, but quietly tell me that you’ve spent a lot of effort training it not to be dangerous without sharing how in public, I think it is warranted for the authorities to be skeptical.

[catigula]

Sorry, this argument doesn't work. Anthropic claims Mythos is in a class of its own, the evidence corroborates this and the government believes it.

The government shot your pit bull because you were going around telling everyone who would listen that it was the most dangerous, viscous one on the cul de sac and you've trained it to kill people and they took you seriously.

[ChadNauseam]

> Anthropic claims Mythos is in a class of its own, the evidence corroborates this and the government believes it.

They didn't release Mythos, they released Fable, which was Mythos + a classifier that detected potentally-dangerous prompts and blocked them. Everyone who used it noticed how aggressive the classifier was. It would trigger constantly over totally innocent stuff.

[catigula]

A classifier that was exposed as non-efficacious for a product touted as having extremely dangerous capabilities.

I can generate hacks trivially by asking any model to fix open source code.

Let’s not pretend you get to have your cake and eat it too.

[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.

[sheepscreek]

You don't need/use pitbulls, but what if you (and many many others) wanted and needed Fable?

I for one was late to the bandwagon, and when I had the use-case for it - the govt pulled the rug. So yeah, I'm a bit salty about the whole endeavour.

I will also say that the security concerns are probably very real (and they have been from the day ChatGPT-3.5 came our). I guess I can be salty about it and still be wrong from their perspective. The govt likely understands the fragility of their infrastructure better than us and is likely aware what this could unleash for their systems.

[ethbr1]

Because it was the basis for the analogy: breed-based dog bans are idiotic, given mixed genetics, temperament, and training.

Said as the owner of a pitbull, who is the sweetest and gentlest dog I've owned. And I've had multiple labradors.