[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Both OpenAI and Antropic already shown themselves to be extraordinary self centered, selfish and willing to lie to get their way.

I buy your claim for OpenAI. I'm not sure about Anthropic. Didn't they turn down the big Pentagon contract because it violated their principles?

>And yes, regulations they are for have an effect of restricting their competition.

Why not just say something like "Any regulation should include a big antitrust component so it doesn't create an advantage for incumbents"?

>I would like to see a token effort of good faith engagement from AI companies. For a change.

What would qualify? Anthropic donated $100M to Project Glasswing to improve security in open source and critical infrastructure. Does that count for anything, or will you explain it away with cynicism somehow?

[watwut]

> Didn't they turn down the big Pentagon contract because it violated their principles?

They sell to Paladin. They had argument with Pentagon about, frankly, minor differences in how to use it on the edges. They are completely comfortable for majority of the uses which is bad enough.

They donated to their own project? Oh, how generous.

They have been pretty clear about their own goal which is to be the monopoly, the only one allowed to control the all powerful AI. Meanwhile, their idea of safety does not make me feel safe, their idea of harm reduction has shows no care about actual harms they are causing. They themselves are the threat to the safety and well being of the rest of us. And intentionally so, it is not about technology as such.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Even if the differences are minor, the fact that Anthropic left a bunch of money on the table to maintain those differences seems interesting.

>They donated to their own project? Oh, how generous.

"Anthropic is committing up to $100M in usage credits for Mythos Preview across these efforts, as well as $4M in direct donations to open-source security organizations."

https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing

An in-kind donation is still a donation. If a bread company donates bread to the homeless, you don't say "They donated products from their own factories? Oh, how generous."

>They have been pretty clear about their own goal which is to be the monopoly, the only one allowed to control the all powerful AI. Meanwhile, their idea of safety does not make me feel safe, their idea of harm reduction has shows no care about actual harms they are causing. They themselves are the threat to the safety and well being of the rest of us. And intentionally so, it is not about technology as such.

In that case, I think you should support some type of regulation, so a third party can step in? Your argument should be along the lines of ensuring that companies don't unduly influence the regulators, not a blanket opposition to regulation?