[alanwreath]

I’m not sure what the US government is trying to do. At first it seems like they are just trying to stifle some company that said no. Now they are just doing free publicity. It’s like never before have I wanted to try something out as much as this.

They’re in effect saying “nothing else is as powerful as what Anthropic put out”. Even though that might not really be the case it’s what it sounds like.

[ryandrake]

It’s probably just basic corruption. Want access to Mythos for your company? Enrich someone in the administration. That’s how everything works now: they outlaw/tariff it and then you pay a bribe to get it back or get declared exempt.

[ASinclair]

It just came out the Kalshi outright gave Donald Trump Jr a $300k stake in the company when it made him a “strategic advisor”. That’s the name of the game now

[deaux]

Could you share some pictures of the rock you're living under? The US regime is concerned with furthering the interests of a closed circle of powerful loyals. This achieves that goal. Access is reserved to those loyals.

[c2h5oh]

Cynic in me thinks it's some or all of the following:

- extract monetary contributions for their side of political spectrum from ai companies

- extract money for personal gain

- grokify ai answers on political / worldview topics, because polls are showing people trust ai answers more than wikipedia

[drcode]

they're flailing is what they're doing

[conception]

They are collecting tribute is what they are doing.

[altcognito]

And they are just getting started.

It sounds insidious, and it probably would be if they weren’t so damn dumb.

[lawn]

Grift. It's all about the grift.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist?

[digitaltrees]

Yes.

A published policy with the right to appeal exclusions from the list.

An equal standard for all companies rather than ad hoc application.

A countervailing policy to mitigate the unfair advantage conferred on the companies that have early access (such as a higher tax rate that goes to fund ai job loses, and a commitment that AI use of the new models won’t result in layoffs).

A requirement that hardware is made available for open source models rather than locked up in by the AI labs.

A restriction on AI labs being vertically integrated from hardware all the way up through the app layer. I would restrict AI labs to being API providers and prohibit them from building apps. That would allow an ecosystem of independent software development on the app layer without fear of being copied by the labs that have an unfair advantage in seeing the data while apps are being built, the usage data as they become successful and the ability to undercut competitors by subsidizing tokens unfairly.

I could go on.

[Certhas]

That would convince me that the US Administration is capable of good governance and interested in a regulatory environment that furthers the public good and curtails excessive corporate power. A tough sell indeed. But that was not the question. They can be incompetent and corrupt and favouring the interests of their buddies, and also genuinely believe that the models are actually becoming dangerous (especially in the hands of other countries). It's simply impossible to tell what mix of motivations led to this mess.

[digitaltrees]

I stand by my answer. They could have a televised address laying out a robust analysis of all the risks. Until their actions don't display clear explicit pay to play selection of winners and lasers, state capture of corporate power and use of technology to prolong republican political power nothing but actual good policy would be sufficient to demonstrate good intent.

[Avicebron]

What real risks? Genuinely.

I've read all the sci fi they have. It's not hard to see where the ideas came from.

What's being questioned is this sentiment of "The only way to save humanity is for me and my lighthaven groupies to become Xillionaire god-kings"

[scarmig]

The latter question is 100% reasonable, and something I also fall on.

But there's definitely a large contingent who denies that they think there's any risk at all, instead of them engaging in motivated reasoning to think their self interest just so happens to coincide with what is best for safety.

[nozzlegear]

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you they're just blowing smoke up our asses in pursuit of money?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Sure! When Mythos was first announced, there was an obvious prediction to make: if what Anthropic says is even remotely true, the participants will start talking over the next few months about how Mythos has been a big deal for them. Then that happened (https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/ai-security-zer..., https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyber-frontier-models/, https://blogs.cisco.com/cisco-on-cisco/how-cisco-defends-aga...), so I became convinced, although I shouldn't make it sound like I ever found the idea implausible.

I might be un-convinced if someone published a clear technical explanation of what error these companies have all made. The only counterarguments I've seen so far are vague speculation about how bubble dynamics might incentivize them to say it worked great, and to me that's not persuasive.

[teliosix]

Of course not. I like to complain that AI is dangerous and should be regulated and then out of the other side of my mouth complain that it is unfair and a gimmick if the government tries to regulate anything.

Why? Because I am a social media addict that lives in 2026 and I don't know how to relate to things in the world that don't involve complaining.

Complaining you see is more form of epistemology and entertainment at the same time to me. Reasoned debate and nuance just doesn't get enough likes for me. I am all about the emotional response to a topic.

[JackC]

I mean, we're talking about an administration that has already over-reached in regulating this specific company out of personal bias; is openly seeking leverage over companies for favoritism and graft; hires on the basis of loyalty to whims of a narcissist; makes fun of the whole idea of competent government based on expertise; provides a range of conflicting explanations for whatever it chooses to do; and has been unable to field a team capable of understanding or explaining whatever real risks are here.

Your question is like asking what evidence would convince us that a bag of rocks doesn't have rocks in it. Easy, just take the rocks out.