Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
From PGP to Mythos: a brief history of export controls that didn't stop anyone (techcrunch.com)
45 points by Brajeshwar 1 hour ago
7 comments

It's a very brief history: it consists of three examples, only one of which isn't in the title. And the middle one is arguably a success story because the government did stop a bunch of spyware vendors it particularly disliked. That they turn a blind eye to some others is not really a policy failure, it's a deliberate political choice.

The obvious difference between PGP and Mythos is that Mythos is a service you buy from a US company, not source code you can procure from anywhere and compile on your own. So this can be enforced better without running into thorny speech issues, etc. Of course, there will be US-based actors willing to resell access, just like there are US-based actors willing to re-ship export-controlled hardware to Iran. And they will probably keep getting arrested every now and then.

The thing that's silly about this situation isn't that export controls on technology can't work, it's that it's overhyped technology and that Anthropic painted themselves into that corner by pretending it's as dangerous as nukes. Add to this a mercurial and petty administration and you have a pretty predictable outcome.

> Mythos is a service you buy from a US company, not source code you can procure from anywhere and compile on your own

weren't chinese labs training on US Ai outputs? a looot of ai power is in correct data to train for - that's pretty much like inviting workers to your factories, they won't take machines with them, but will see and consume all the processes

Agreed that you can export-control the closed source models pretty well (although I think the administration is gravely underestimating the long-term damage that will do to the US economy).

The bigger problem will be if someone (such as a Chinese AI lab) releases a Fable/Mythos-class open weight model. That you can't really export control successfully. Sure, you could class it under EAR or ITAR, but that's just going to make using it difficult for American companies, not everyone else. It would be a stupid protectionist measure that would only hurt the US - so I fully anticipate the admin would try it.

There's no way US can keep that export control as it is for the frontier models in the long term.

This would blow huge damage to the US financial markets first, the insane CAPEX spending propping up gdp, but also US competitivity in the long run.

Sure, the US is the most important tech market on the planet, but according to Anthropic 80% of their revenue comes from outside of the US.

Let alone the fact that these research labs desperately need the top talent they can get globally, not just MIT-bred Leetcode ninjas.

The only way US can have a lead is by competing globally as it always had in the tech sector (albeit it resorted to export controls to assert its dominance over China), not by changing the rules of the game and with protectionism.

These controls are impossible to enforce. Users find ways around, compliant businesses lose.
Trump's export controls to China seem to be having the exact opposite effect as intended, and are (as a less befuddled mind might have anticipated!) actually accelerating their technical advance.

Huawei is a good case in point, about to have a 100% domestic replacement for NVIDIA chips (& CUDA stack), not reliant on TSMC, ASML, Samsung, SK Hynix... Initially Huawei's Ascend AI chips had used HBM memory from Samsung and SK Hynix, but their next generation 950 series (fabbed by SMIC) will use memory (fabbed by CXMT), not using the HBM standard, but by necessity their own HiBL and HiZQ standards.

HBM depends on ever wider memory bus widths to increase bandwidth, which in turn depends on SOTA TSMC manufacturing nodes for bus density. Huawei found a different way, using their LinqQu interconnect/switching tech to aggregate the bandwidth of individually slower memory chips resulting in an aggregate 4TB/sec bandwidth on par with HBM3e.

Trump has blocked Fable for export, but China (Ziphu) already has GLM-5.2 knocking on the door of the US frontier models, despite being developed with one hand tied behind their back. GLM-5.1 had only scored 18% on DeepSWE, but GLM-5.2 coming 11 weeks later, scores 48%, about on par with GPT 5.5. What's next ?!

> Something went wrong. Disable your adblocker on TechCrunch

No, that actually means something went well - my adblocker saved me from being blasted by distracting, deceitful, dangerous content.

Pro tip: reader mode bypasses this aggressive “go away” banner.

NoScript is a layer that makes my experience on the internet so much better.
How do you make it work without breaking every website? I've tried it once and pretty much nothing loaded since like 99.9% of the web uses js for basic functionality.
Before countries worry about tech they need to address fresh water, homelessness, and filth. Look at India and china, for example.
Exept PGP could run on freely available hardware. What makes Mythos vulnerable is the centralization and scale of compute required and its proprietary nature.

History shows that export controls fail on knowledge, but are damn effective on commercial products.

How so? 80% of Anthropic's revenue comes from outside the United States.

There's no way to justify high capex, and US-personnel only research labs and pretend to keep the lead in AI at the same time.

You either compete square and fair, or you're gonna stay behind.

> Amazon CEO Andy Jassy also reportedly alerted the administration after Amazon’s own researchers, he said, found a way around Fable 5’s safeguards. Anthropic disputes the “jailbreak” label

Doing god’s work there, Andy, thanks /s

Wonder what Anthropic internal messages look like about his move. Does Anthropic have a meme slack channel?

I think "jailbreaking" fable to match opus 4.8 capabilities is not noteworthy. Fable from my experience is not as eager to find vulnerabilities compared to what they describe in their mythos research.
Wonder if context size would matter. Find and fix “bugs” in Linux kernel or find and fix “bugs” in this short snippet of code. I would try a file by file approach first.

I don’t know how much we want to believe the “reports”. But there are probably a few other tricks they didn’t expose. If these are pre/post processing guardrails I could see something like “fix bugs” actually working.