Rendered at 05:43:56 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
theahura 41 minutes ago [-]
> “I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown Friday
why is the commerce secretary making this decision
naturalmovement 36 minutes ago [-]
because the Export Administration Regulations are administered by the US Dept of Commerce.
you're welcome
jchook 30 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
kurthr 32 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
mlinsey 6 hours ago [-]
I understand why Anthropic might not want to fight this particular one in court, because they're trying to convince the administration to let them move forward.
But would another company who is not on the trusted partner list and has less to lose taking on the admin have standing to sue here? On the basis of the export control being illegal and this putting their business at a disadvantage vs. competitors with access
zarzavat 1 hours ago [-]
Technically the US government is allowing Anthropic to serve the models to any US citizen, and it's Anthropic who decided that's impossible to comply with and so they pulled the model for everyone. I guess a US business with non-citizen employees could work.
A lawsuit would be a hard sell though, because Anthropic themselves argued that the technology is dangerous. Even if many people on HN might think that Anthropic was scaremongering about Mythos, a court is probably going to take their assessment at face value, and courts are loathe to find against governments in cases of national security.
There's also the issue that these models are getting better through an iterative process, so even if the line between GPT 5.5 and Fable/GPT 5.6 is somewhat arbitrary, it doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be able to draw a line at all. So you're left arguing that they drew the line too early, which is subjective.
wahnfrieden 1 hours ago [-]
Are you certain? Trump admin is hand-picking GPT 5.6 winners
zarzavat 25 minutes ago [-]
The Government's position is that Anthropic/OpenAI are forbidden from allowing non-US citizens use the models. This is impossible in reality because how can Anthropic know that the person sitting behind a Claude code session or API key is at any given moment a US citizen? You can check their ID on signup but how can they know that they didn't give their credentials to someone else to use? They can't.
Given the impossibility of compliance, what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing is working with the government to release it to certain organizations with the government's blessing.
If this were about missiles and not AI models, nobody would question this turn of events. If the government said that nobody can export this missile or allow non-citizens access to the missile, and then they started giving permission for certain organizations to handle the missile, that would be normal, not picking winners.
The only reason people are questioning it in this case is because they believe that these models are not dangerous enough to deserve these kinds of export controls. Personally I'd agree that in my 3 days of using Fable I didn't observe any superpowers. Unfortunately however, Anthropic undermined that argument by claiming that Mythos is highly dangerous, which set them up for any jailbreak of Fable to be considered a national security risk. Who is a court going to believe? Someone who used a model for 3 days? Or the government and the people who made that model?
somenameforme 6 minutes ago [-]
I don't think this is what happened. It's more likely that Anthropic pulled the plug on everybody hoping that it'd drive wide antagonism towards the government which would help put them in a more favorable situation for future negotiations to establish a more 'commercially favorable regulation regime.' In other words, build me a moat, now! The government responded by super-screwing them, but is doing so in a way that can help keep the corporate class relatively content while this plays out.
quietfox 3 minutes ago [-]
Comparing AI models with missiles is a far fetch as long as citizenship is the single qualifier used to decide who’s allowed to be a customer. This is not a security related policy, it’s about strategically controlled economic power.
naturalmovement 1 hours ago [-]
> I guess a US business with non-citizen employees could work.
No. Only if those employees have a green card and the company must not only take on that responsibility but ensure other employees are denied access. Otherwise the company would be subject to millions in fines.
US export laws are no fuckin' joke like everyone here seems to think they are.
It's really frustrating to read pages of comments rooted in emotion and no understanding of the existing laws.
hagemt 1 hours ago [-]
> It's really frustrating to read pages of comments rooted in emotion and no understanding of the existing laws.
I read your frustration. Try to let go of the fact that there are many smart people who aren't experts in legal affairs. Cite eCFR if they're wrong, and move on. As much as they don't know the rules, you don't know their situation.
For all you know, the subscriber may be a US Citizen + Delaware C Corp owner.
naturalmovement 46 minutes ago [-]
At some point it becomes willful ignorance of history.
I remember a time not very long ago when everyday crypto like 128-bit SSL was restricted under US export law. The old web browsers came in separate, "exportable" versions. [1]
Phil Zimmermann was in big trouble for releasing PGP. That was the mid-90s. Clinton was President so this stuff transcends politics.
The people in charge of enforcing US export law are worse than city building inspectors and the penalties are orders of magnitude more severe. They're not people you want to mess with, ignore, or pretend you didn't know the rules.
threethirtytwo 2 hours ago [-]
Also there’s no incentive to fight. They already have one of the best models. Mythos remains a trump card when a competitor releases an even better model.
bluegatty 2 hours ago [-]
There's huge incentive.
The government has arbitrary commandeered their business.
This could ruin Anthropic.
They are walking a tight rope with respect to revenues, hype, IPO.
If this kills their hyper growth prospects, it could kill the IPO.
If there's a serious change the gov. is out of line, the judges could put a stay and possibly throw this out.
There may however be enough of a case, in which there's maybe not much they can do.
Having a crazy person completely control your business is very, very bad.
koolala 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe they would prefer Nationalization more than an IPO.
siva7 2 hours ago [-]
sue? whom? usa? have fun..
seizethecheese 2 hours ago [-]
US government regularly loses lawsuits and has to backtrack policy.
They could just ignore Trump as he has no authority to so limit a private company.
mlinsey 5 hours ago [-]
The labs will not just ignore the order, there are too many other levers they can try to pull to mess with those companies. Just for some examples, think about the number of employees reliant on visas that could be revoked, the government contracts that the hyperscalers hosting them that could be canceled, the certifications that all the data centers need to be hooked up to the grid, the tariffs that could be put on critical components, the IPOs that need to be approved by regulators, the bill introduced in Congress to seize 50% of their equity...
Lots of these moves would and should be struck down in court as an arbitrary and capricious use of administrative power. Some of them might not be, and in the meantime you're signing up for tons of trouble. A trillion-dollar company does not simply go to war with the US government.
A more mid-sized company that's not so intertwined, but not so small that they can't get a good legal team, might be another story.
jandrewrogers 2 hours ago [-]
These regulations have been in place since the 1990s and have been applied by every administration. It isn’t a new authority and many companies have had the opportunity to fight it. Anthropic’s lawyers will know this.
LamaOfRuin 2 hours ago [-]
None of them have asserted that export controls apply to whatever domestic distribution the administration says that never leaves the country.
jandrewrogers 8 minutes ago [-]
Please read the actual regulations and laws. They do not work the way you are assuming. Companies with obligations under these regulations are required to actively prevent constructive export via domestic distribution. If you let a foreign country launder access to the tech through domestic channels, that is on you. It is why KYC laws exist.
You don’t want to fuck around with export control laws.
caseysoftware 1 hours ago [-]
Before you offer legal advice, you should at least check the legal definition of "export":
> The EAR definition of “export” extends beyond the transportation of physical goods outside the U.S.
> A “Deemed export” is the release of technology or source code to a foreign national in the U.S. The release is “deemed” to be an export to the last permanent residence status/citizenship of the foreign national. This can occur through demonstration, oral briefing, site visit, or through transmission of non-public data.
Yes he does. They could ignore the US government, but will likely quickly find themselves in court fighting a fight that they are likely to lose and isn’t worth fighting anyway.
mcmcmc 2 hours ago [-]
Not just in court. The Trump admin would have no problem dragging them in off the street. You can now get a 50 year terrorism sentence for punishing zines - I imagine flagrantly granting access to unapproved parties would be treated similarly.
ilteris 1 hours ago [-]
You are not wrong but I would also consider that it's relative easier to sentence someone who is nobody than someone famous in that regard.
naturalmovement 2 hours ago [-]
Ignoring US export control laws that have been on the books for nearly 50 years is a good way to pay millions of $ in fines and/or land in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Ask every satellite launch company in the 90s how that worked out.
jvanderbot 3 hours ago [-]
Aside from how brazen and stupid this would be, the executive branch does have ways of limiting them and their sharing of tech, as we've seen.
theturtletalks 4 hours ago [-]
>> More than 100 companies and institutions will now have access to Mythos 5, including many Fortune 500 companies, a source familiar with the new directive said, declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Who are those 100 companies? Clearly they can't compete on merit and have rubbed some hands to be picked as winners...at least for now.
exabrial 3 hours ago [-]
How does my small company become a "trusted partner"?
willsmith72 2 hours ago [-]
Oh you thought this was a competitive free market?
flipbrad 2 hours ago [-]
Donate to his ballroom project, perhaps? Pay for tokens with his crypto coin?
goatlover 2 hours ago [-]
This administration doesn't care about small companies anymore than it cares about regular Americans.
Dig1t 2 hours ago [-]
Anthropic has been touting how their newest model is basically a cyber weapon and is so dangerous that they need to only role it out to trusted people and make sure it has super restrictive guard rails. They are begging to be regulated. This is exactly what they’ve been asking for.
vinay427 2 minutes ago [-]
> This is exactly what they’ve been asking for.
This doesn't directly follow from the first part of your comment, and more importantly seems inaccurate with respect to Anthropic's public statements on this situation. For example:
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
usgov picking winners and losers in AI --> usgov picking winners and losers in every industry (speedrun, any %)
jurschreuder 28 minutes ago [-]
It's a win-win game because both Anthropic and the Government are on the front page again pulling on important leavers.
In the mass-marketing world it's less about who's right or wrong but who is perceived by the population to be pulling the leavers on the front page again.
Alien1Being 5 hours ago [-]
Don't start to rely on it .
The US might remove access next month in a fit of pique.
The Chinese models look increasingly more reliable and safer.
tyre 4 hours ago [-]
This is a pithy internet comment, but terrible advice.
Between the Chinese government and Anthropic, I know which one I'd rather send tokens to. For all of the problems of the US, for-profit corporations, data harvesting, etc. the CCP (and, perhaps more troublesome, its allies) is far less likely to align with your interests.
jeroenhd 4 hours ago [-]
I don't buy that anymore. The day America threatened to invade Canada and Denmark was the day America showed they cannot be trusted any more.
It's not like China can be trusted either, but China isn't planning any direct invasions to the west. Taiwan, perhaps, but they're playing a long-term tactical game rather than a "invade the country we don't like this week" game. They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all.
If you're afraid of industrial espionage, Chinese companies may be a risk, but in that case you shouldn't be uploading your secrets to an AI company in the first place.
ra 2 hours ago [-]
I agree. Our greatest nation-threats are not the countries we're told they are.
ElProlactin 2 hours ago [-]
> Taiwan, perhaps, but they're playing a long-term tactical game rather than a "invade the country we don't like this week" game.
So one of the world's biggest and most rapid military build-ups in history that is largely intended to give China the ability to seize a democratic country by force by 2027 over any US/Western efforts to protect it is OK because...it's "a long-term tactical game"?
Note that China is not just menacing Taiwan. It's constantly harassing Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam too. Other countries in the region are worried because they understand that if China takes Taiwan successfully, it's not likely to stop there and become a good, peaceful neighbor.
The US, under Trump, is a foreign policy disaster. That doesn't mean that China, with a seemingly more emotionally stable dictator at the helm, is any less dangerous.
> They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all.
With all due respect, you're really naive about how China operates.
> The US, under Trump, is a foreign policy disaster.
This administration only removed the blinds on what has always been an adversarial policy, allies included.
If given a choice you may choose US or Chinese models for whatever reason it's fine, but there's no need to fall into the delusion that it is for moral reasons or obligations.
cute_boi 2 hours ago [-]
China has a economy which they can't risk. People keep saying same thing for Russia, but they haven't been able to defeat even Ukraine.
At this point I am afraid of US government than China...
ElProlactin 2 hours ago [-]
> China has a economy which they can't risk. People keep saying same thing for Russia, but they haven't been able to defeat even Ukraine.
Huh? Russia invaded Ukraine, at significant economic cost, and hundreds of thousands of people have died.
> At this point I am afraid of US government than China...
Just as people can walk and chew gum at the same time, you can have reason to be concerned about more than one country at a time.
wyrdcurt 2 hours ago [-]
Less likely to align with your interests maybe, but have you considered that not everyone has the same interests?
Personally I am much more concerned about handing my data over to the government that actually has power over me and labels dissenters terrorists than I am with the government overseas that has no direct effect on my life... well, other than providing alternative LLMs with permissive licenses that can be hosted anywhere in the world... but to each their own, I suppose.
2 hours ago [-]
rcr-anti 3 hours ago [-]
Being open weight, the Chinese models can be served the same way as Anthropic's: via AWS or GCP. Or whomever really, or on prem.
plandis 4 hours ago [-]
> I know which one I'd rather send tokens to.
Do you have access to Mythos? If not the choice has already been made for you.
nickthegreek 4 hours ago [-]
You don’t have to run the chinese models in chinese data centers as many of them are open weights. Some could say that trumps both.
deaux 1 hours ago [-]
> Between the Chinese government and Anthropic, I know which one I'd rather send tokens to.
You meant to write "Between the Chinese government and the US government". Completely agreed though, better to send it to the former.
foogazi 2 hours ago [-]
What if the model is hosted on a 3rd party site ?
ls612 3 hours ago [-]
You don't have to send your tokens to the CCP to use the Chinese models, that is the beauty of it. You can find GLM, Minimax, Deepseek, Kimi, etc hosted in China, Europe, the US, and probably elsewhere depending on what your geographic preferences for token transport are.
ebbi 2 hours ago [-]
Given recent history, I'd be more likely to be killed by American actions than Chinese ones.
greenavocado 2 hours ago [-]
China won't arrest you for wrongthink where you live now
digitaltrees 1 hours ago [-]
Except the open weights can live on your hardware so no one gets your tokens.
LNSY 2 hours ago [-]
At least China isn't a terrorist state run by Jeffery Epstein Associates. It's a nation run by engineers, and it has flaws, but at least the people at the top know how to read.
DANmode 4 hours ago [-]
Safer?
hajile 1 hours ago [-]
If I can run it locally, it is certainly more safe than running on some cloud server somewhere.
DANmode 33 minutes ago [-]
Others nations’ models run offline, too.
micromacrofoot 4 hours ago [-]
well at least they're a little further away
alanwreath 5 hours ago [-]
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 8 minutes ago [-]
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.
deaux 58 minutes ago [-]
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 2 hours ago [-]
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 5 hours ago [-]
they're flailing is what they're doing
conception 4 hours ago [-]
They are collecting tribute is what they are doing.
altcognito 2 hours ago [-]
And they are just getting started.
It sounds insidious, and it probably would be if they weren’t so damn dumb.
5 hours ago [-]
SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [-]
Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist?
digitaltrees 2 hours ago [-]
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.
Avicebron 2 hours ago [-]
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 56 minutes ago [-]
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 2 hours ago [-]
Is there any evidence at all that would convince you they're just blowing smoke up our asses in pursuit of money?
JackC 3 hours ago [-]
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.
lawn 1 hours ago [-]
Grift. It's all about the grift.
Hawkenfall 7 hours ago [-]
This appears to be only for Mythos 5 access, NOT Fable 5.
irthomasthomas 6 hours ago [-]
So only 100 companies have exclusive access to frontier AI.
andsoitis 4 hours ago [-]
> So only 100 companies have exclusive access to frontier AI.
Only the frontier AI labs have true access to frontier AI. Everyone else gets a reduced version.
foogazi 2 hours ago [-]
Tri-modal distribution of frontier AI
sourthyme 6 hours ago [-]
Aren't these the same models?
aesthesia 6 hours ago [-]
Under the hood, yes, but Mythos had more relaxed safeguards and was/is only available to a subset of approved customers under Project Glasswing, similar to the situation with GPT-5.6 now.
qsxfthnkp2322 6 hours ago [-]
Fable was available to me as a normal person using Claude.ai
Mythos never was and I don’t think that’s changing.
ryan_n 5 hours ago [-]
Until the chinese make a comparable open source model at some point
qsxfthnkp2322 2 hours ago [-]
Gatekeeping so only the big companies in the USA keep their 1%
As a small business owner this is unacceptable
quietsegfault 2 hours ago [-]
I recommend making a donation to the Trump administration, that seems like the way to go.
qsxfthnkp2322 2 hours ago [-]
Sadly I cannot afford a gold brick and a custom etched piece of glass
iAMkenough 5 hours ago [-]
I’d say we’re about 5 years out from the Great Firewall of America, and requiring government ID associated with serial number to legally purchase components.
America will do that before gun control.
qsxfthnkp2322 2 hours ago [-]
Flocking hell.
Not the future I want but I see that too.
The nra has more lobby power than anyone.
paxys 6 hours ago [-]
Mythos doesn't have the strict safeguards of Fable and is only accessible by a very small number of pre-approved companies.
6 hours ago [-]
espeed 1 hours ago [-]
Are Cyber Verification Program (CVP) members included in this?: "We also intend to scale up our Cyber Verification Program, which would grant Mythos-class capabilities to many more organizations for specific cyberdefense tasks" (https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing).
avaer 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder if the Founding Fathers knew about AI, they would include it in the 2nd?
The spirit is to provide effective tools for the people to resist federal military tyranny, and Mythos seems like it would be a good tool to defend against that, for so many reasons.
aesthesia 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure that analogy works: pretty much everyone agrees that there are some types of weapons civilians shouldn't be able to have, even though they might be very effective for resisting military tyranny.
digitaltrees 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t think everyone agrees on that. It’s just that the government has been able to legislate that as technology evolved.
That being said many legal scholars say the state militia was intended to be the defense against tyranny not individual citizens because there were government led crackdowns on rebellion under Washington and other presidents from the earliest days of the republic. State militias have the full range of weapons
2 hours ago [-]
tyre 4 hours ago [-]
Could you explain this like I'm 35?
taintlord 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
chopete3 3 hours ago [-]
It is interesting that there is no public announcement from the US government or Anthropic on this topic. That means there is no form to apply to be a trusted partner.
Does it mean US is allowing accessing to governments' exclusive list?
andrewchambers 6 hours ago [-]
This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'
A_D_E_P_T 6 hours ago [-]
Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.
slashdave 5 hours ago [-]
Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"
tyre 4 hours ago [-]
Crypto companies were built for anonymous transfers of wealth. It's why they are perfect for money laundering and corruption. Venture backed companies are more difficult, since you would need a paper trail (equity, incorporation documents, beneficial owners, etc.)
It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record.
(No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)
citadel_melon 3 hours ago [-]
VC companies do not dig into the numbers as you suggest. FTX was able to get away with their fraud for a long time for that very reason. VC companies don’t care if some of their investments are fraudulent as they spread their eggs so thin that it doesn’t matter if any given basket blows up. VC firms stated this to the press outright when FTX blew up.
Also most crypto companies are not good for laundering since the blockchains record that fraud forever and publicly. I could see some specific protocols where that may not be true — like monero or tornado cash — but these projects are not really startups. Most crypto startups pitch their products for enterprise customers and thus would be horrible for laundering money.
ares623 6 hours ago [-]
Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.
airstrike 6 hours ago [-]
The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now.
redcheeks 5 hours ago [-]
Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore
ajmurmann 28 minutes ago [-]
Well, the network states were supposed to be a social thing rather than a place, no? Free Cities movement is more focused on actual, physical places.
andy99 6 hours ago [-]
Other than maybe some in-the-moment cybersec wrappers, is this really true? Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release? It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release, but in real life it’s not conferring some massive advantage that any real startup would need to compete. Almost everyone would be best just to ignore it and keep building.
(Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
pdimitar 4 hours ago [-]
> Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release?
- It's not "incrementally better". It's a complete game changer. Opus 4.8 on max thinking does X amount of mistakes in my commercial work. Fable 5 did 5% of X. Counted. I barely had anything to contribute in the work sessions, for a full week I could count on my two hands the total amount of times I actually caught Fable 5 -- and one part of those were not true mistakes, more like divergence from policy in our `CLAUDE.md` files.
- It's not "security focused". It's simply better in every way _plus_ it's also security-conscious.
- It legitimately accelerated my work. I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Fable 5 was an objective and measurable improvement over Opus 4.8. Returning to it after Fable 5 was removed was extremely discouraging and frustrating, and still is to some extent.
> It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release
Maybe, but not as much fun as tearing down a straw man apparently. :)
> (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
It's ridiculous for multiple other reasons but ridiculous nonetheless.
didibus 1 hours ago [-]
> I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do.
Interesting, I'm curious what work you do? My software engineering career has never been in that situation, it's always so much ambiguity and unknown that trumps everything.
tbcj 4 hours ago [-]
Fable wasn’t available for a full week. It was released on June 9 and made unavailable June 12.
pdimitar 4 hours ago [-]
Okay, might have mistook 4 work days for 5.
afavour 5 hours ago [-]
That kind of gets to the absurdity of it. Either it’s a wildly powerful next generation model with incredible capabilities and thus needs to be limited… or it’s another progressive enhancement like we’ve seen already and limiting access to it makes no sense.
paytonjjones 5 hours ago [-]
I don't think that follows.
Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?
ares623 5 hours ago [-]
The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time.
tyre 4 hours ago [-]
As someone old enough to remember the party breakdown in Congress when Obama came to office, yes, I can confirm that this is possible.
xorgun 6 hours ago [-]
Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality
redcheeks 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
__natty__ 6 hours ago [-]
And we get the news the same time OpenAI releases 5.6. What a coincidence?
mrandish 6 hours ago [-]
I think they kind of had to since they allowed OpenAI to do a 5.6 "preview to trusted parties" today. The other driver is that the DoD/NSA wanted to get access to Mythos again. I figure OAI will now do several weeks of 'preview' like Anthropic did with Mythos. When OAI wants to release 5.6 wider to actually start making money with it, I expect Fable will get approved the same day.
Back when the administration hit Mythos/Fable with the surprise ban, I figured this would be the endgame. They'd keep Anthropic tied up until a competitor had a roughly comparable model ready, then gate them the same.
xorgun 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
layla5alive 2 hours ago [-]
The Cantillon Effect applied to machine intelligence..
jandrewrogers 2 hours ago [-]
+1 Insightful
bastard_op 4 hours ago [-]
China will just buy a "trusted partner" one way or another.
It's like the epidemic of scam nvidia cards being resold without gpu or memory - where do you think those are going?
tonyrice 3 hours ago [-]
I'm looking forward to better open source models. Now I just need to afford the compute to run these models.
SwellJoe 6 hours ago [-]
"I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model"
I assume "trusted partners" means, "companies that have bribed Trump an appropriate amount". A few million for the inauguration, a few million for the ballroom, a few million on a movie about Melania, the don wants a taste.
monksy 2 hours ago [-]
I can't wait till employees start helping with the distillation process.
tracerbulletx 7 hours ago [-]
Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line.
coffeemug 6 hours ago [-]
Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.)
EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
tzs 6 hours ago [-]
> Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives.
Every one of those is by a regulatory agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress to do such regulation.
to11mtm 6 hours ago [-]
until it isn't, i.e. certain rulings over the last couple years...
morkalork 5 hours ago [-]
You're talking about the EPA yes? Such ridiculousness
calvinmorrison 3 hours ago [-]
right, and one minute to the next a gun you bought could be a crime to own and land you in jail LOL.
congress has abdicated its role entirely.
greenavocado 2 hours ago [-]
Dajcie mi człowieka, a paragraf się znajdzie
translates to:
Give me the man and I will give you the case against him
> I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.
If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?
digitaltrees 1 hours ago [-]
No. But it could be done in accordance with the rule of law and commitment to equal access rather than an ad hoc approach that creates the impression of corruption and picking winners.
standardUser 6 hours ago [-]
All of the agencies responsible for those regulations were created by and get their funding from Congress. Currently, they're asleep at the wheel. Or a better idiom might be "cowering in the corner".
GolfPopper 5 hours ago [-]
I would say, "sitting smugly astride the monster's back, confident that they will never be fed to it".
verelo 6 hours ago [-]
None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious.
Jblx2 6 hours ago [-]
Information is covered by ITAR, so that's not new. You can illegally export information about an ITAR covered item by just allowing a foreign national the potential to see an item. They don't even have to prove the foreign national actually did see it.
Fairly certain all those have "acts of congress" attached to them. I mean, it used to take a constitutional amendment to make something illegal but now we have tons of agencies responsible for regulating all the things.
Plus, they're relying on the "math is a weapon" law to ban "export" of the models.
delichon 6 hours ago [-]
Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2778) in the Ford administration and it has been applied to software since at least the Clinton administration.
conartist6 6 hours ago [-]
isn't this materially different in that it creates a kind of class system within the US?
varenc 3 hours ago [-]
how so? Is it a class system that only Raytheon employees can work on cruise missiles, not the average citizen?
(edit: not that these models are equivalent to missiles oc)
sgc 2 hours ago [-]
Cruise missiles are not general purpose tools, it's obviously not even remotely similar. Virtually everybody reading this could use Mythos immediately to do real work, collectively in virtually every part of the economy.
It's pretty problematic to not make it more widely available at least to US businesses, and there is not even a vetting process to get approved quickly and easily. If this is the new norm, the intended or unintended consequences of this type of gatekeeping will be an unprecedented consolidation of power amongst the largest corporations. Even more than we have seen over the last 20 years.
micromacrofoot 4 hours ago [-]
the continued exploits of the same kind of class system the US has always had
skywhopper 6 hours ago [-]
It has never taken a constitutional amendment to make something illegal.
alpinisme 6 hours ago [-]
Prohibition was the 18th amendment
onionisafruit 6 hours ago [-]
slavery required the 13th amendment
jiggawatts 6 hours ago [-]
"Malboro cigarettes may once again be sold, but Newport remains banned for everyone except large purchasers that have paid the appropriate bri... fees."
motbus3 6 hours ago [-]
I wonder what kind of emergency will happen when real elections get around
6 hours ago [-]
az226 5 hours ago [-]
And even if a court places an injunction on the ban, it's possible Anthropic will still choose to keep it unavailable.
actionfromafar 6 hours ago [-]
Overturning the Chevron doctrine is good because it stops lawful people from doing things we don't like. We aren't bound by laws, so we can do whatever we want.
-- GOP probably
twoodfin 3 hours ago [-]
The Chevron doctrine gave more power to the executive agencies of the current administration, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
That repealing the chevron doctrine was a calculated play in the unitary executive theory. We all know congress is basically useless these days. But we also know that regulation isn’t, like, optional. It’s going to happen no matter what.
So what’s left? Where does that decision making go? Turns out the executive, so that’s what we’ve been seeing and it’s largely uncontested. This should have been obvious to most people going into this, particularly if they understood Trumps platform or Project 2025.
twoodfin 2 hours ago [-]
Repeal of the Chevron doctrine took the power of deference away from executive agencies and replaced it with first-principles judicial interpretation of statutes.
Chevron and the unitary executive theory have essentially nothing to do with each other.
I’m still not sure what point is attempting to be made here.
preg_match 2 hours ago [-]
In effect, it did not. All it said is that the powers enumerated to those executive agencies must be more explicitly laid out by congress. But, that’s just not something that’s going to happen.
So, the gap has been filled largely by executive orders.
calvinmorrison 3 hours ago [-]
perhaps congress could do something other than vacation
3 hours ago [-]
tiahura 6 hours ago [-]
They did. Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. § 4511 );Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4812 are just two of them.
naturalmovement 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
viscountchocula 4 hours ago [-]
Genuine question: are non-citizen users within the US considered an "export"?
3 hours ago [-]
naturalmovement 3 hours ago [-]
It depends.
Green card holder? No.
Everyone else*: Yes.
* It's far more complicated and nuanced than this.
tchalla 6 hours ago [-]
Do you remember the export controls on Covid vaccine material during the height of coronavirus? I do
5 hours ago [-]
outside1234 6 hours ago [-]
Is there a list of the partners that get access? That should be public, right?
mikestorrent 5 hours ago [-]
Bless your heart
bluecalm 4 hours ago [-]
Is there any scenario where it's not catastrophic for for the frontier labs?
They just got their market cut to a fraction. Investing in new tech is now very risky because even if things work out you might not be able to sell anything.
There were already serious doubts about ROI for the frontier labs. If they can only sell to 100 or so entities it's over business wise.
What's the endgame here?
kristopolous 6 hours ago [-]
Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
GolfPopper 5 hours ago [-]
I've been laughing when people tell me that for my entire adult life. It remains a pretty funny bit of dark humor, though.
z3c0 4 hours ago [-]
Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife
jandrewrogers 4 hours ago [-]
The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime.
The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
But it was applied using principles of the rule of law with clear regulatory frameworks. This is not that
jandrewrogers 3 hours ago [-]
I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.
If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.
digitaltrees 1 hours ago [-]
I am aware that the government has always been involved in these types of issues. Even a season finale of silicon valley shows pied piper being required to navigate government oversight when it became successful and implied it was a badge of honor / success.
But you have to admit this policy seems ad hoc and creates the impression of opening a wide door for corruption.
sagarm 3 hours ago [-]
Jumping in to reflexively defend the admin again, I see.
Is there any policy from this admin you don't support?
jandrewrogers 3 hours ago [-]
I am making an observation of fact. My feeds are full of ignorant hot takes that clearly demonstrate people have no clue about current law or how the government actually works. Your response is a perfect demonstration of this. This is neither unique to the current administration nor supporters of a particular party.
I don’t support the admin but if you are unwilling to engage with reality then that is on you.
digitaltrees 1 hours ago [-]
Make a case then based on Prior examples and why they are of the same nature and degree.
We are talking about the government giving exclusive access the the most transformative technology in human history to a select group of companies with no formal policy as to how you gain access, lose access, what you are expected to do with that access or commitment to transparency around any of this.
davesque 3 hours ago [-]
Also known as, the tu quoque fallacy. Just because politicians in both parties have been doing this for decades doesn't mean that this administration is not especially hypocritical for doing it after whinging so much about free speech and free markets.
typeofhuman 4 hours ago [-]
The only correct reply.
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.
dmix 3 hours ago [-]
Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented.
Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc.
Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
Stop with the false equivalence.
y1n0 5 hours ago [-]
Well, there are the political ideals expressed or embraced by the populace, and then there are politicians. AFAICT political parties at the national level and state level in the US is pure theater.
rikfckfj284 4 hours ago [-]
the question isn’t about size, it’s about who the government works for. Small government can promote private interests by not entering certain societal spaces, leaving them for profit making — education, healthcare, housing etc. But large government can also promote private interests, by directing tax dollars to corporations (and still not entering certain societal spaces).
It’s not about size, it’s about where it chooses to operate
Gagarin1917 5 hours ago [-]
Now?
ch4s3 5 hours ago [-]
They haven’t claimed to be the free market party since Obama was in office. Trump very much ran an anti free market campaign the first time.
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
Yes they have.
ch4s3 3 hours ago [-]
Not really. They’re all lousy pro tariffs, anti immigration, pro tech regulations, and so on. Paul Ryan is gone.
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
They still spout off about free markets all the time with no sense of irony.
CamperBob2 3 hours ago [-]
They'll literally tell you it's not raining while you're standing there getting soaked. [1] Anything the Republicans say is meaningless.
Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
m4nu3l 4 hours ago [-]
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want.
In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic that tells you when markets fail (externalities, information asymmetry), or empirically by looking at what was basically the most perfect A/B test we had on society over the 20th century. Although it was a comparison between mixed economies and fully centralised ones, there is no reason to expect the optimum mix of centralisation/distribution to be closer to the worst-performing one (the fully centralised one).
plaguuuuuu 3 hours ago [-]
You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.
This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
orangecat 3 hours ago [-]
at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
I mean, it's not. In a free market you'd have a choice of insurance providers rather than having to take whatever plan your employer offers, and you'd have some idea of what the hospital is going to charge you beforehand rather than receiving random bills for weeks.
m4nu3l 3 hours ago [-]
Just to be clear, my definition of free-market is just that there is no centralised authority that can use force to set prices/quantities/quality/type of services offered.
Of course, the fact that the employer has to offer health insurance in some cases is part of it not being a free market.
But there are more fundamental things that make the US healthcare very far from being a free market. The first one is that the supply of doctors is capped in quantity, not just in quality.
m4nu3l 3 hours ago [-]
> You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.
You can prove the logic part starting from the assumptions. It's also falsifiable. I just mentioned it was literally the most controlled test on human society you could make. We tested by splitting societies at the level of the entire planet, states and cities.
US healthcare is mostly not a free market; by free market, at minimum, I mean that the quantities and prices (ideally even the quality) are not set. The US healthcare system has a fixed number of practitioners who can get a license every year. This is as far as a market can be from being free (together with the case of having price controls). In fact, free market theory predicts that when you restrict quantity, you get higher prices for the same quality.
It literally predicts the US situation.
It's funny you mention Marx, given I regard most of his claims as either unfalsifiable or easily proven false.
gverrilla 3 hours ago [-]
> A/B test we had on society over the 20th century.
Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.
m4nu3l 3 hours ago [-]
Not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate?
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
Yes. But that was the “big government democrat” argument that republicans said was evil and un American.
sharts 3 hours ago [-]
Free for me, not for thee
digitaltrees 3 hours ago [-]
If you laugh you’re a communist and against Christianity and part of a satanic cabal.
paytonjjones 5 hours ago [-]
That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement.
Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong.
(FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, government oversight)
brokencode 5 hours ago [-]
I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.
The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
drdaeman 2 hours ago [-]
What rules, though?
Bernie and AOC (which aren't DNC mainstream, but prominent) had just pushed for a moratorium on "AI data centers" with a definition that includes "that are used for the development or operation of AI models at scale" (trivially sidesteppable by "we build this GPU farm to sell to whoever bids for compute" - which is actually true), plus a bunch of fancy extras bundled in like "The government must review and approve AI products before they are released
to ensure that AI products are safe and effective.", while lacking actual definition of "AI" (given that we had "AI" systems since '50s).
Yeah, the bill has a cause - it recognizes some pain points. But then it haphazardly tries to address symptoms instead of underlying issues (environmental regulations, utility pricing, land use, job security), while pushing vaguely defined regulations that allow arbitrary application. As if misdirected measures and poorly defined laws aren't already a giant issue.
FireBeyond 5 hours ago [-]
> the perception of political decision making
The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".
Alupis 4 hours ago [-]
> More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline..."
The previous administration was totally not exactly what's described here...
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
It wasn’t. Biden largely didn’t do much. The trump administration does illegal things that get struck down in courts on a daily basis. We’re all very desensitized to it.
But yes, Biden was old and cognitively not well. But his “whims” didn’t exist much, and they were always fairly reasonable. Trump is the most unreasonable president, most likely in US history. I would even categorize Andrew Jackson as more restrained.
Alupis 3 hours ago [-]
The courts struck down many Biden policies as well. People just give those a pass because "SCOTUS is rigged" or something...
amanaplanacanal 3 hours ago [-]
The only big one I remember is the college loan forgiveness thing.
Ah, so those weren’t mostly 6-3 decisions along partisan lines?
dualvariable 5 hours ago [-]
Don't forget the blatant grift and corruption.
ThunderSizzle 3 hours ago [-]
Obamacare, but for AI, where every American has to now pay a penalty to not use AI or something like that?
That was the last major thing the Democrats did, and healthcare has gotten substantially worse...but at least it's well regulated now.
boc 48 minutes ago [-]
The IRA and the CHIPS Act were the "last major thing" the Dems did, and both were far better policy for tech than anything out of this current administration.
tick_tock_tick 3 hours ago [-]
> I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.
Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.
Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.
5 hours ago [-]
4lx87 5 hours ago [-]
We don’t have to guess. Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden — which was rescinded by Trump when he took office.
Marc Andreesen has first-hand knowledge that absolutely refutes what you are saying.
The Democratic party is more anti-ai than the Republican party and unfortunately both of them are increasingly responding to astroturfed populism.
Do you think Bernie Sanders in AOC are pro-ai? Are you kidding me? Have you seen what they say and the legislation they propose?
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, but they’re proposing legislation. Trump is legislating from the White House, through a series of bribes and corrupt conduct.
Not even on the same playing field. They just can’t be compared, they’re incomparable.
nutjob2 5 hours ago [-]
Also free speech/the first amendment and various other rights people are supposed to have but don't in practice.
DANmode 5 hours ago [-]
Fourth Amendment, through corporate data purchase or exfiltration.
4 hours ago [-]
az226 5 hours ago [-]
Not just that, Biden administration started with some AI regulation that the Trump administration nixed, and then outright banning models. Lunacy.
5 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
JPKab 5 hours ago [-]
If you think that anthropic wasn't pushing aggressive regulatory capture legislation in the Biden administration, why do you think they hired a bunch of people from it?
ribosometronome 4 hours ago [-]
What Anthropic was pushing for under Biden has very little to do with the values Republicans have been espousing (and failing to live up to) for decades. That's kind of the point op was making. Republicans run on small government but do not deliver it. Democrats do not run on small government. Democrat Presidents campaign on and push for things like the ACA, they don't have fun quips like, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”
A clear regulatory framework to operate within allows businesses to operate within it rather than get surprised by the King's whims upending their business on every few Fridays. If you expect regulation will eventually happen, pushing for it to happen on terms you're able to comply with rather than as haphazard surprises is pretty sensible.
Alupis 4 hours ago [-]
It's very fashionable to hate on the current administration, despite what the previous administration was doing. That's reality and I'll be punished to hell for saying so.
SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [-]
If you don't want the current administration to be blindly hated, perhaps you should ask the president to stop publishing daily statements about how much he hates various people. You reap what you sow.
Alupis 4 hours ago [-]
It'll never stop amusing me how blind we are to politicians that are "on our side".
SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago [-]
Again, you're seeing this as some kind of clever invariant of politics, but it's not. People are blind to politicians on their side because Donald Trump has spent the past 10 years working hard to make sure that everyone in politics is constantly enraged at the other side. You're being "punished to hell", in your words, because you're blaming Trump's passionate embrace of hatred-based politics on his opponents.
Alupis 3 hours ago [-]
> you're seeing this as some kind of clever invariant of politics, but it's not. People are blind to politicians on their side because Donald Trump
Yes, sure, it is I who is blind...
paulddraper 5 hours ago [-]
Then cry as you look for the free market/small government leaders.
jknoepfler 5 hours ago [-]
Ever since I've been conscious (the 80s), it's been the party of fear, violence and greed. They've consistently nominated actual clowns for positions of power. B-movie actor Ronald Reagan... Dan Quayle... Sarah Palin... the current, truly stunning iteration of absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy TWICE after he killed hundreds of thousands of people due to COVID/vaccine skepticism and staged a violent attack on the capitol after losing a democratic election.
Free market? Small government? Big police state, trillions in defense contractor grift, unsustainable tax breaks to the wealthiest leading to massive spending deficits... all while doing everything to erode access to education, healthcare and basic services.
It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.
edit: typo
danans 5 hours ago [-]
> It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.
People get quite a kick out of seeing people they don't like get hurt. They can stay entertained by that for a long time until it bites them.
Only now is it finally biting with the collapse of the rural medical clinics, the war induced spike in the price of gasoline, etc.
That's probably playing a big part in the seeming shift in the electorate in every election.
MaxPock 4 hours ago [-]
Republicans trust Americans with guns and not an LLM. That should tell you something.
GolfPopper 2 hours ago [-]
It tells me that the people who buy Republican politicians make money from selling Americans guns, and somebody with influence thinks they can make money by restricting LLM release.
bilsbie 5 hours ago [-]
Which party is?
iAMkenough 5 hours ago [-]
The one currently running the show.
ryanar 6 hours ago [-]
its all trump, he is a megalomaniac, not affiliated with any party but his own
afavour 5 hours ago [-]
They have affiliated themselves to him. Watch, within a month of Democrats being back in power they’ll be harping small government, denigrating the national debt they ballooned themselves. There’s no reason to help them attempt to disavow it.
Klathmon 5 hours ago [-]
But it's not just him, it's the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.
andsoitis 4 hours ago [-]
> the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.
That's untrue.
If you do some homework you will see Republican politicians and the Supreme Court disagreeing on a number of issues. Amongst Republican voters, his approval rating has been sliding and is now below 80% in most polls.
VK-pro 3 hours ago [-]
Wow a whole 20% of dissent. Impressive.
andsoitis 2 hours ago [-]
You have to remember that very very few voters agree/support everything their party does. If that wasn't the case, then not a single American voter is morally pure.
atlgator 5 hours ago [-]
They passed one major piece of legislation since he took office and it was loaded with pork to get everyone onboard. I wouldn't call that aggressive. The Right is very fractured right now.
wk_end 5 hours ago [-]
At least in part that's because they've stopped legislating. The executive now basically just does whatever it wants.
jLaForest 5 hours ago [-]
The right is fractured is several ways but there is one unifying value: unquestioning support for Trump
atlgator 4 hours ago [-]
I can't tell if you're disingenuous or just ignorant. The Trump admin has been completely coopted by the pro-Israel lobby and Big Tech. He betrayed his entire base. He's ruling by executive fiat (EOs). Anyone that speaks out publicly for the original platform gets a primary challenger funded by Miriam Adelson or threats. See Thomas Massie, MTG, Lauren Boebert, etc. Are you paying attention at all? The Boomers watching Fox News propaganda in their nursing homes all day are not a reflection of party unity.
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
The Fox News boomers were pawns, but everyone knew that. Trump is a “money talks” kind of guy, that’s why people voted for him.
Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
jknoepfler 5 hours ago [-]
It's fractured as a consequence of its own actions, which all of its constituent members bear direct responsibility for.
Epstein cover up? Iran? COVID denialism? Complete disregard for rule of law? Accepting massive, direct bribes? Trying to control broadcast media?
That's all on the Republican party as a collective, who did absolutely nothing to resist it and everything to put him in power TWICE. TWICE.
ryanmcbride 5 hours ago [-]
it's actually the entire party that's propping him up. If it was just trump he would be living on the street.
gkoberger 5 hours ago [-]
Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find.
While Trump is a megalomanic and does whatever he wants, he has the mandate of the Republican party, whose elected officials could choose at any moment to end this by withdrawing support.
Don't let them off the hook.
andsoitis 4 hours ago [-]
> Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find.
It's lower than that. Most polls show below 80%.
> Don't let them off the hook.
That's not the way.
digitaltrees 58 minutes ago [-]
80% is cult numbers especially when you consider Trump has changed the platform to be the opposite of basically everything the party stood for.
keyle 5 hours ago [-]
It seems people can flip that coin whenever it suits them.
servercobra 5 hours ago [-]
And yet the rest of the party falls in behind him.
malcolmgreaves 5 hours ago [-]
The entire Republican party in all branches of government is supporting Trump. His politics and the Republican party politics are one and the same. The last election the party did not have a platform because, quite literally, they said that whatever Trump says _is_ their platform.
jknoepfler 5 hours ago [-]
He's a Republican backed by the Republican establishment funded by Republican donors and massively influential in Republican primaries. Republicans voted him into power twice. Republicans pushed his voter fraud narrative. Republicans embraced his vaccine skepticism and killed countless Americans. Republicans voted for his ICE policies that murdered two citizens of my home state.
Republicans caused this disaster and are all, each and every, individually morally responsible for putting Trump in power.
Republican voters, Republican politicians, Republican donors and the Republican political machine.
They picked the losing side of history and they can sink with it.
trimethylpurine 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
defrost 4 hours ago [-]
> a much greater injury and death rate attributable to vaccines than COVID.
Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition.
Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had world class epidemiology researchers plugged into integrated national health records for 50+ years.
trimethylpurine 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
defrost 3 hours ago [-]
Data first.
What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines.
Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries?
I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
Right but at the end of the day how many people died from the Covid vaccine?
We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
richbell 3 hours ago [-]
What I'm reading is that you agree Trump represents the republican party. Great, the gp's comment has been settled.
trimethylpurine 3 hours ago [-]
Okay. I can't say I care much who he represents. I'm more concerned with the fact that half the country is okay with pardoning a war criminal who committed a biological weapons attack on literally every country in the world, including the US.
If I have to pick between a murderer and literally killing everyone on earth I'll pick the murderer because I'm not a psychopath.
Can you blame me?
azan_ 4 hours ago [-]
Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives. That’s what actual research shows, not your delusions. I’m biochemistry phd so yeah, step up.
trimethylpurine 4 hours ago [-]
Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy.
If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.
And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.
Please prove me wrong.
Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).
I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
azan_ 3 hours ago [-]
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
trimethylpurine 3 hours ago [-]
Seriously? There is only one study that the FDA cited to claim that it was safe and effective submitted by Pfizer. But let me help then. Let's ignore the fact that the head of the FDA was fired and replaced because he refused to say so. Let's just look at the research directly.
Love to hear your input here. Check the math carefully.
> "Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives."
I'm convinced you didn't get this idea from honestly reading research.
azan_ 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
MaxHoppersGhost 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
preg_match 3 hours ago [-]
Some things are just true. Rape bad, murder bad, war bad. I have never understood this reasoning.
If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?
jmyeet 5 hours ago [-]
Considering there's no such thing as a "free market" I've been laughing for a real long time. Markets require regulation and enforcement to function.
The US government was created to protect the interests of rich, white, male slave owners. And if you look at Louisiana State Penintentiary (often called "Angola"), which is essentialy a Southern plantation with forced labor, you realize not as much has changed as you might otherwise think.
paulddraper 5 hours ago [-]
The it did a pretty shit job of it. Within 100 years it was killing hundreds of thousands to fight against that purpose.
jmyeet 3 hours ago [-]
Lincoln disagrees [1]:
> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
While chattel slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery continued through debt bondage and convict leasing up until 1941 where FDR suddenly decided to aggressively prosecute the practice for fear of the Japanese using it for propaganda value. I'm referring to Circular 3591 [2]. And while that heavily curtailed abuse (eg by locking people up essentially indefinitely for "vagrancy" or imaged debts), forced prison labor continues to this day, including private companies profiting from prison labor.
Also, while the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the South arguably won. Reconstruction saw severe curtailment of newly-established civil rights for former enslaved people. And after Reconstruction came Jim Crow until the 1960s.
The point of slavery was money, and the point of money was power. By the time of the civil war the real power for the ruling class was coming from industrialization.
truthbe 5 hours ago [-]
Open source should create a new license where it specifically doesn't allow release to these "trusted partners".
digitaltrees 49 minutes ago [-]
And blocks not just training on the oss code but use of it by models. If they want to build on the shoulders of us plebes they shouldn’t be able to include our code in their vibe coded bs
Cryptosale75 1 hours ago [-]
I personally believe that Dario Amodei is probably one of the 'less shitty' AI leaders. But literally no one is going to convince me that either 1. He overplayed his hand and fucked up 2. This is at least 'majority' PR.
jraph 1 hours ago [-]
Did you mess up your double negation?
brokensegue 1 hours ago [-]
You mean neither?
andai 4 hours ago [-]
Weren't they already doing that?
sscaryterry 6 hours ago [-]
I thought Fable was a "safer" Mythos?!
dchftcs 6 hours ago [-]
I suppose the point is that Mythos was released to a smaller set of partners anyway and Fable is for the masses.
zacksiri 2 hours ago [-]
This reminds me of the following quote
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
SwellJoe 2 hours ago [-]
I'll point out that a lot of the current administration and Republican Congress that enables the current administration are Ayn Rand fans.
zacksiri 2 hours ago [-]
They cherry pick and choose the parts of her work that fits their agenda, while forgetting the other parts.
SwellJoe 1 hours ago [-]
Of course. No true Scotsman would ever do such a thing.
kdawag 5 hours ago [-]
To the surprise of absolutely nobody following the news
6 hours ago [-]
jchook 2 hours ago [-]
The entire arc reads as a marketing stunt rather than a legitimate national security threat. Maybe Anthropic asked the US for this action to be taken.
edit: > Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (lol)
Fable was out for 3 days, not really long enough for us to properly evaluate it, but the "Sorry we had to remove Fable. Read more. (because it's too powerful btw)" is loudly shown every chance they get for weeks. It creates a halo.
Reminiscent of the 1999 Apple G4 commercial where they displayed it next to military tanks. "For the first time in history, a personal computer has been classified as a weapon by the U.S. government."
nozzlegear 6 hours ago [-]
Wowee, just happens to be on the same day of OpenAI's Sol announcement. How convenient for Dario and Anthropic!
__natty__ 6 hours ago [-]
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Feels like someone is playing a high-stakes game, putting on a show involving the US government.
Aeolun 6 hours ago [-]
This should perhaps not be surprising considering the president.
Henchman21 6 hours ago [-]
This is what “stacking the deck” looks like
Havoc 5 hours ago [-]
One more aspect where the US can no longer be counted on.
Let's hope this creates a bit more fire under the asses of other countries
pertymcpert 7 hours ago [-]
Why would they allow Mythos but not Fable? Fable is the one with more guardrails.
layer8 6 hours ago [-]
They only allow it for specific companies and agencies, which are trusted with the less restricted model. The general public is still not trusted to use Fable, apparently.
nozzlegear 6 hours ago [-]
To quote famed businessman and philosopher Eugene Krabs: "Money."
olalonde 6 hours ago [-]
It feels the U.S. is moving closer to a textbook definition of crony capitalism. Really sad but unsurprising with the current administration.
mullingitover 4 hours ago [-]
I don't think you can move closer to something that you're already fully enmeshed in.
The rate that the ruling class ran into crony capitalism at the first chance they got is something that needs to be remembered. They'll try to act like they were always against it at some point in the near future.
olalonde 4 hours ago [-]
Milton Friedman was prescient on this:
> The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups: my academic colleagues and business people. Business people are enemies of free markets, not friends.
> [...]
> The business people are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else, and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessman to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of a free market. But when it comes to their own business, they want to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction. They want a tax subsidy. And Chrysler is on the verge of failing, which it should have done. It should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence and tries to get the government to lend it money to subsidize it.
> So businessmen in general — not all, there have been some notable exceptions — and I don't want to include everybody. But in the main, most businessmen are enemies of free markets.
Congrats sama. Such a great sophisticated 5d chess move.
llelouch 5 hours ago [-]
Please explain. Do you think Altman wanted this to catch-up?
jimmydoe 4 hours ago [-]
I think it’s a complex dynamic but he certainly preferred this to happen than not, and someone might have nudged the development to his favor while aligned well with this admin’s interests.
cute_boi 2 hours ago [-]
I think we should also thank Dario for constantly beaming "Mythos is dangerous". That's why I keep saying we shouldn't support Closed AI and Misanthropic.
wewewedxfgdf 3 hours ago [-]
I wonder if Anthropic and ChatGPT will continue to scream at the top of their lungs how dangerous their services are and how they will break the security of everything everywhere?
Or may they'll decide to be a little more quiet and less end-of-the-world-is-nigh-if-you-use-our-services?
jauntywundrkind 7 hours ago [-]
* to some US companies.
Asterisk the size of a Mac truck.
Also this administration having say over who gets access to what AI is just so much more grift corruption and picking your favorites / destroying others, for these incdecent undemocratic in American grifters who've seized our state.
wolvoleo 6 hours ago [-]
If this is the way things are now, isn't that going to crash the AI stocks? All those trillions dumped into it probably weren't with the expectation that it could only be sold to a handful of select US agencies and corporations.
thrwaway55 6 hours ago [-]
They are all private aren't they? There's nothing to crash since the valuations were all made up funny raise numbers anyway. A donation to the right person likely removes the restrictions
wolvoleo 2 hours ago [-]
But the effects on the industry as a whole are huge, look at the cost of memory, CPUs and GPUs. Many of the companies that make them are not private.
bluecalm 4 hours ago [-]
They all get serious investments from public companies and a lot of public companies rely on those private labs buying stuff from them.
SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago [-]
Depends on how much of an overhang there is with the power of existing models. Have we discovered 10%, 50%, or 90% of the valuable applications for Opus 4.8 / GPT 5.5? Hard to be confident at this point.
bayarearefugee 6 hours ago [-]
> If this is the way things are now, isn't that going to crash the AI stocks?
Maybe, maybe not. Tech stocks are mostly vibes-based now, reality isn't really a concern for them.
standardUser 5 hours ago [-]
Meanwhile, China is pushing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO), which, in the face of internal divisions and impotent leadership among Western nations, could prove to be the first global regime that China gets to build and lead.
micromacrofoot 4 hours ago [-]
america is worrying about a civil war and missing the corporate takeover
2 hours ago [-]
naturalmovement 5 hours ago [-]
80% of the irrationally angry comments here have zero clue how export controls work and is giving me serious Dunning Kruger vibes.
Please go read US history before sounding off on this topic. These laws have existed for decades.
gensym 5 hours ago [-]
Just because a policy is legal doesn't mean it cannot be disastrous.
andsoitis 5 hours ago [-]
"disastrous" seems hyperbolic to me.
what disaster do you foresee?
gensym 4 hours ago [-]
Favored companies get access to frontier models, which gives them a competitive advantage, starving out smaller companies. Any smaller companies that do manage to innovate ultimately get acquired by the favored companies since they are worth more with access to frontier models than without (which is effectively a discount on the purchase price of those companies).
I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it is one possible scenario that, over time, would be disastrous for innovation and freedom.
nickthegreek 3 hours ago [-]
Foreseeable corruption by the state. A further slip into cronyism. A large puzzle piece that when simply connected with the recent actions like demanding shares in companies, removing funding for energy projects not aligned with other lobbies, pardoning of white collar criminals. It seems pretty plain and obvious the type of disasters that await.
Capricorn2481 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not being facetious, can you direct us to which laws are in play here? Specifically, why different models can be classified as different exports that need separate approvals?
naturalmovement 2 hours ago [-]
Section 5 Part 2 (Information Security) of the EAR Commerce Control List likely applies.
IANAL; you need to be one to interpret this stuff. These laws are as thick as a dictionary.
The EAR dates back to the Export Administration Act of 1979 but it was mostly overhauled by Congress in 2018.
aryonoco 6 hours ago [-]
Land of the free, land of the brave. Free market. Freedom of speech. Market economy.
These words don’t mean what they use to anymore. Newspeak is in full swing. Words still sound the same and are written in the same way but now mean something completely different. If Mao and Stalin were alive, they would be nodding approvingly.
wasting_time 6 hours ago [-]
Free for me, not for thee!
I hope the Chinese models catch up soon so I can stop contributing to the American economy.
1over137 4 hours ago [-]
Stop contributing now. Why wait?
wasting_time 4 hours ago [-]
Claude makes me a 10x better programmer. Giving that up I might as well switch to llama farming.
nozzlegear 2 hours ago [-]
It just makes you think you're a 10x better programmer. In reality you've just given yourself 10x more busywork because "Claude can handle it." For the parts that Claude has actually improved your programming, the open models compete just fine.
hmokiguess 5 hours ago [-]
I identify as a trusted partner, can I have one Mythos please.
why is the commerce secretary making this decision
you're welcome
But would another company who is not on the trusted partner list and has less to lose taking on the admin have standing to sue here? On the basis of the export control being illegal and this putting their business at a disadvantage vs. competitors with access
A lawsuit would be a hard sell though, because Anthropic themselves argued that the technology is dangerous. Even if many people on HN might think that Anthropic was scaremongering about Mythos, a court is probably going to take their assessment at face value, and courts are loathe to find against governments in cases of national security.
There's also the issue that these models are getting better through an iterative process, so even if the line between GPT 5.5 and Fable/GPT 5.6 is somewhat arbitrary, it doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be able to draw a line at all. So you're left arguing that they drew the line too early, which is subjective.
Given the impossibility of compliance, what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing is working with the government to release it to certain organizations with the government's blessing.
If this were about missiles and not AI models, nobody would question this turn of events. If the government said that nobody can export this missile or allow non-citizens access to the missile, and then they started giving permission for certain organizations to handle the missile, that would be normal, not picking winners.
The only reason people are questioning it in this case is because they believe that these models are not dangerous enough to deserve these kinds of export controls. Personally I'd agree that in my 3 days of using Fable I didn't observe any superpowers. Unfortunately however, Anthropic undermined that argument by claiming that Mythos is highly dangerous, which set them up for any jailbreak of Fable to be considered a national security risk. Who is a court going to believe? Someone who used a model for 3 days? Or the government and the people who made that model?
No. Only if those employees have a green card and the company must not only take on that responsibility but ensure other employees are denied access. Otherwise the company would be subject to millions in fines.
US export laws are no fuckin' joke like everyone here seems to think they are.
It's really frustrating to read pages of comments rooted in emotion and no understanding of the existing laws.
I read your frustration. Try to let go of the fact that there are many smart people who aren't experts in legal affairs. Cite eCFR if they're wrong, and move on. As much as they don't know the rules, you don't know their situation.
For all you know, the subscriber may be a US Citizen + Delaware C Corp owner.
I remember a time not very long ago when everyday crypto like 128-bit SSL was restricted under US export law. The old web browsers came in separate, "exportable" versions. [1]
Phil Zimmermann was in big trouble for releasing PGP. That was the mid-90s. Clinton was President so this stuff transcends politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netscape_Navigator_1.1_fo...
Claiming ignorance is a good way to pay tens of millions of $ in fines or do prison time.
Here's one from TWO DAYS AGO:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/manager-us-freight-forw...
She will be doing 18 months in federal lockup.
The people in charge of enforcing US export law are worse than city building inspectors and the penalties are orders of magnitude more severe. They're not people you want to mess with, ignore, or pretend you didn't know the rules.
The government has arbitrary commandeered their business.
This could ruin Anthropic.
They are walking a tight rope with respect to revenues, hype, IPO.
If this kills their hyper growth prospects, it could kill the IPO.
If there's a serious change the gov. is out of line, the judges could put a stay and possibly throw this out.
There may however be enough of a case, in which there's maybe not much they can do.
Having a crazy person completely control your business is very, very bad.
Lots of these moves would and should be struck down in court as an arbitrary and capricious use of administrative power. Some of them might not be, and in the meantime you're signing up for tons of trouble. A trillion-dollar company does not simply go to war with the US government.
A more mid-sized company that's not so intertwined, but not so small that they can't get a good legal team, might be another story.
You don’t want to fuck around with export control laws.
> The EAR definition of “export” extends beyond the transportation of physical goods outside the U.S.
> A “Deemed export” is the release of technology or source code to a foreign national in the U.S. The release is “deemed” to be an export to the last permanent residence status/citizenship of the foreign national. This can occur through demonstration, oral briefing, site visit, or through transmission of non-public data.
Ref: https://exportcontrol.lbl.gov/training/export-control-overvi...
Ask every satellite launch company in the 90s how that worked out.
Who are those 100 companies? Clearly they can't compete on merit and have rubbed some hands to be picked as winners...at least for now.
This doesn't directly follow from the first part of your comment, and more importantly seems inaccurate with respect to Anthropic's public statements on this situation. For example:
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access
In the mass-marketing world it's less about who's right or wrong but who is perceived by the population to be pulling the leavers on the front page again.
The US might remove access next month in a fit of pique.
The Chinese models look increasingly more reliable and safer.
Between the Chinese government and Anthropic, I know which one I'd rather send tokens to. For all of the problems of the US, for-profit corporations, data harvesting, etc. the CCP (and, perhaps more troublesome, its allies) is far less likely to align with your interests.
It's not like China can be trusted either, but China isn't planning any direct invasions to the west. Taiwan, perhaps, but they're playing a long-term tactical game rather than a "invade the country we don't like this week" game. They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all.
If you're afraid of industrial espionage, Chinese companies may be a risk, but in that case you shouldn't be uploading your secrets to an AI company in the first place.
So one of the world's biggest and most rapid military build-ups in history that is largely intended to give China the ability to seize a democratic country by force by 2027 over any US/Western efforts to protect it is OK because...it's "a long-term tactical game"?
Note that China is not just menacing Taiwan. It's constantly harassing Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam too. Other countries in the region are worried because they understand that if China takes Taiwan successfully, it's not likely to stop there and become a good, peaceful neighbor.
The US, under Trump, is a foreign policy disaster. That doesn't mean that China, with a seemingly more emotionally stable dictator at the helm, is any less dangerous.
> They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all.
With all due respect, you're really naive about how China operates.
https://www.wired.com/story/chineses-surveillance-state-is-s...
Wake me up when they start drone striking neighboring country's fishermen and accusing them of carrying drugs.
https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/a-different-kind-of-army...
This administration only removed the blinds on what has always been an adversarial policy, allies included.
If given a choice you may choose US or Chinese models for whatever reason it's fine, but there's no need to fall into the delusion that it is for moral reasons or obligations.
At this point I am afraid of US government than China...
Huh? Russia invaded Ukraine, at significant economic cost, and hundreds of thousands of people have died.
> At this point I am afraid of US government than China...
Just as people can walk and chew gum at the same time, you can have reason to be concerned about more than one country at a time.
Personally I am much more concerned about handing my data over to the government that actually has power over me and labels dissenters terrorists than I am with the government overseas that has no direct effect on my life... well, other than providing alternative LLMs with permissive licenses that can be hosted anywhere in the world... but to each their own, I suppose.
Do you have access to Mythos? If not the choice has already been made for you.
You meant to write "Between the Chinese government and the US government". Completely agreed though, better to send it to the former.
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.
- 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
It sounds insidious, and it probably would be if they weren’t so damn dumb.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Only the frontier AI labs have true access to frontier AI. Everyone else gets a reduced version.
Mythos never was and I don’t think that’s changing.
As a small business owner this is unacceptable
America will do that before gun control.
Not the future I want but I see that too.
The nra has more lobby power than anyone.
The spirit is to provide effective tools for the people to resist federal military tyranny, and Mythos seems like it would be a good tool to defend against that, for so many reasons.
That being said many legal scholars say the state militia was intended to be the defense against tyranny not individual citizens because there were government led crackdowns on rebellion under Washington and other presidents from the earliest days of the republic. State militias have the full range of weapons
Does it mean US is allowing accessing to governments' exclusive list?
It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record.
(No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)
Also most crypto companies are not good for laundering since the blockchains record that fraud forever and publicly. I could see some specific protocols where that may not be true — like monero or tornado cash — but these projects are not really startups. Most crypto startups pitch their products for enterprise customers and thus would be horrible for laundering money.
(Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
- It's not "incrementally better". It's a complete game changer. Opus 4.8 on max thinking does X amount of mistakes in my commercial work. Fable 5 did 5% of X. Counted. I barely had anything to contribute in the work sessions, for a full week I could count on my two hands the total amount of times I actually caught Fable 5 -- and one part of those were not true mistakes, more like divergence from policy in our `CLAUDE.md` files.
- It's not "security focused". It's simply better in every way _plus_ it's also security-conscious.
- It legitimately accelerated my work. I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Fable 5 was an objective and measurable improvement over Opus 4.8. Returning to it after Fable 5 was removed was extremely discouraging and frustrating, and still is to some extent.
> It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release
Maybe, but not as much fun as tearing down a straw man apparently. :)
> (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
It's ridiculous for multiple other reasons but ridiculous nonetheless.
Interesting, I'm curious what work you do? My software engineering career has never been in that situation, it's always so much ambiguity and unknown that trumps everything.
Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?
Back when the administration hit Mythos/Fable with the surprise ban, I figured this would be the endgame. They'd keep Anthropic tied up until a competitor had a roughly comparable model ready, then gate them the same.
It's like the epidemic of scam nvidia cards being resold without gpu or memory - where do you think those are going?
I assume "trusted partners" means, "companies that have bribed Trump an appropriate amount". A few million for the inauguration, a few million for the ballroom, a few million on a movie about Melania, the don wants a taste.
EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
Every one of those is by a regulatory agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress to do such regulation.
congress has abdicated its role entirely.
Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.
If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M...
Plus, they're relying on the "math is a weapon" law to ban "export" of the models.
(edit: not that these models are equivalent to missiles oc)
It's pretty problematic to not make it more widely available at least to US businesses, and there is not even a vetting process to get approved quickly and easily. If this is the new norm, the intended or unintended consequences of this type of gatekeeping will be an unprecedented consolidation of power amongst the largest corporations. Even more than we have seen over the last 20 years.
-- GOP probably
So what’s left? Where does that decision making go? Turns out the executive, so that’s what we’ve been seeing and it’s largely uncontested. This should have been obvious to most people going into this, particularly if they understood Trumps platform or Project 2025.
Chevron and the unitary executive theory have essentially nothing to do with each other.
I’m still not sure what point is attempting to be made here.
So, the gap has been filled largely by executive orders.
Green card holder? No.
Everyone else*: Yes.
* It's far more complicated and nuanced than this.
They just got their market cut to a fraction. Investing in new tech is now very risky because even if things work out you might not be able to sell anything.
There were already serious doubts about ROI for the frontier labs. If they can only sell to 100 or so entities it's over business wise.
What's the endgame here?
The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.
But you have to admit this policy seems ad hoc and creates the impression of opening a wide door for corruption.
Is there any policy from this admin you don't support?
I don’t support the admin but if you are unwilling to engage with reality then that is on you.
We are talking about the government giving exclusive access the the most transformative technology in human history to a select group of companies with no formal policy as to how you gain access, lose access, what you are expected to do with that access or commitment to transparency around any of this.
Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc.
Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.
It’s not about size, it’s about where it chooses to operate
1: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/artic...
This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
I mean, it's not. In a free market you'd have a choice of insurance providers rather than having to take whatever plan your employer offers, and you'd have some idea of what the hospital is going to charge you beforehand rather than receiving random bills for weeks.
You can prove the logic part starting from the assumptions. It's also falsifiable. I just mentioned it was literally the most controlled test on human society you could make. We tested by splitting societies at the level of the entire planet, states and cities.
US healthcare is mostly not a free market; by free market, at minimum, I mean that the quantities and prices (ideally even the quality) are not set. The US healthcare system has a fixed number of practitioners who can get a license every year. This is as far as a market can be from being free (together with the case of having price controls). In fact, free market theory predicts that when you restrict quantity, you get higher prices for the same quality. It literally predicts the US situation.
It's funny you mention Marx, given I regard most of his claims as either unfalsifiable or easily proven false.
Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.
Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong.
(FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, government oversight)
The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
Bernie and AOC (which aren't DNC mainstream, but prominent) had just pushed for a moratorium on "AI data centers" with a definition that includes "that are used for the development or operation of AI models at scale" (trivially sidesteppable by "we build this GPU farm to sell to whoever bids for compute" - which is actually true), plus a bunch of fancy extras bundled in like "The government must review and approve AI products before they are released to ensure that AI products are safe and effective.", while lacking actual definition of "AI" (given that we had "AI" systems since '50s).
Here's the full text: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/AI-Data-Ce...
Yeah, the bill has a cause - it recognizes some pain points. But then it haphazardly tries to address symptoms instead of underlying issues (environmental regulations, utility pricing, land use, job security), while pushing vaguely defined regulations that allow arbitrary application. As if misdirected measures and poorly defined laws aren't already a giant issue.
The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".
The previous administration was totally not exactly what's described here...
But yes, Biden was old and cognitively not well. But his “whims” didn’t exist much, and they were always fairly reasonable. Trump is the most unreasonable president, most likely in US history. I would even categorize Andrew Jackson as more restrained.
That would be your politics coloring your memory.
That was the last major thing the Democrats did, and healthcare has gotten substantially worse...but at least it's well regulated now.
Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.
Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statement...
How well does it stand up to Mythos?
The Democratic party is more anti-ai than the Republican party and unfortunately both of them are increasingly responding to astroturfed populism.
Do you think Bernie Sanders in AOC are pro-ai? Are you kidding me? Have you seen what they say and the legislation they propose?
Not even on the same playing field. They just can’t be compared, they’re incomparable.
A clear regulatory framework to operate within allows businesses to operate within it rather than get surprised by the King's whims upending their business on every few Fridays. If you expect regulation will eventually happen, pushing for it to happen on terms you're able to comply with rather than as haphazard surprises is pretty sensible.
Yes, sure, it is I who is blind...
Free market? Small government? Big police state, trillions in defense contractor grift, unsustainable tax breaks to the wealthiest leading to massive spending deficits... all while doing everything to erode access to education, healthcare and basic services.
It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.
edit: typo
People get quite a kick out of seeing people they don't like get hurt. They can stay entertained by that for a long time until it bites them.
Only now is it finally biting with the collapse of the rural medical clinics, the war induced spike in the price of gasoline, etc.
That's probably playing a big part in the seeming shift in the electorate in every election.
That's untrue.
If you do some homework you will see Republican politicians and the Supreme Court disagreeing on a number of issues. Amongst Republican voters, his approval rating has been sliding and is now below 80% in most polls.
Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
Epstein cover up? Iran? COVID denialism? Complete disregard for rule of law? Accepting massive, direct bribes? Trying to control broadcast media?
That's all on the Republican party as a collective, who did absolutely nothing to resist it and everything to put him in power TWICE. TWICE.
While Trump is a megalomanic and does whatever he wants, he has the mandate of the Republican party, whose elected officials could choose at any moment to end this by withdrawing support.
Don't let them off the hook.
It's lower than that. Most polls show below 80%.
> Don't let them off the hook.
That's not the way.
Republicans caused this disaster and are all, each and every, individually morally responsible for putting Trump in power.
Republican voters, Republican politicians, Republican donors and the Republican political machine.
They picked the losing side of history and they can sink with it.
Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition.
Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had world class epidemiology researchers plugged into integrated national health records for 50+ years.
What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines.
Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries?
I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.
We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
If I have to pick between a murderer and literally killing everyone on earth I'll pick the murderer because I'm not a psychopath.
Can you blame me?
If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.
And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.
Please prove me wrong.
Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).
I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Love to hear your input here. Check the math carefully.
> "Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives."
I'm convinced you didn't get this idea from honestly reading research.
If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?
The US government was created to protect the interests of rich, white, male slave owners. And if you look at Louisiana State Penintentiary (often called "Angola"), which is essentialy a Southern plantation with forced labor, you realize not as much has changed as you might otherwise think.
> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
While chattel slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery continued through debt bondage and convict leasing up until 1941 where FDR suddenly decided to aggressively prosecute the practice for fear of the Japanese using it for propaganda value. I'm referring to Circular 3591 [2]. And while that heavily curtailed abuse (eg by locking people up essentially indefinitely for "vagrancy" or imaged debts), forced prison labor continues to this day, including private companies profiting from prison labor.
Also, while the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the South arguably won. Reconstruction saw severe curtailment of newly-established civil rights for former enslaved people. And after Reconstruction came Jim Crow until the 1960s.
[1]: https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/artic...
[2]: https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/state-imposed-fo...
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
edit: > Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (lol)
Fable was out for 3 days, not really long enough for us to properly evaluate it, but the "Sorry we had to remove Fable. Read more. (because it's too powerful btw)" is loudly shown every chance they get for weeks. It creates a halo.
Reminiscent of the 1999 Apple G4 commercial where they displayed it next to military tanks. "For the first time in history, a personal computer has been classified as a weapon by the U.S. government."
Let's hope this creates a bit more fire under the asses of other countries
The rate that the ruling class ran into crony capitalism at the first chance they got is something that needs to be remembered. They'll try to act like they were always against it at some point in the near future.
> The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups: my academic colleagues and business people. Business people are enemies of free markets, not friends.
> [...]
> The business people are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else, and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessman to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of a free market. But when it comes to their own business, they want to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction. They want a tax subsidy. And Chrysler is on the verge of failing, which it should have done. It should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence and tries to get the government to lend it money to subsidize it.
> So businessmen in general — not all, there have been some notable exceptions — and I don't want to include everybody. But in the main, most businessmen are enemies of free markets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8
Or may they'll decide to be a little more quiet and less end-of-the-world-is-nigh-if-you-use-our-services?
Asterisk the size of a Mac truck.
Also this administration having say over who gets access to what AI is just so much more grift corruption and picking your favorites / destroying others, for these incdecent undemocratic in American grifters who've seized our state.
Maybe, maybe not. Tech stocks are mostly vibes-based now, reality isn't really a concern for them.
Please go read US history before sounding off on this topic. These laws have existed for decades.
what disaster do you foresee?
I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it is one possible scenario that, over time, would be disastrous for innovation and freedom.
IANAL; you need to be one to interpret this stuff. These laws are as thick as a dictionary.
The EAR dates back to the Export Administration Act of 1979 but it was mostly overhauled by Congress in 2018.
These words don’t mean what they use to anymore. Newspeak is in full swing. Words still sound the same and are written in the same way but now mean something completely different. If Mao and Stalin were alive, they would be nodding approvingly.
I hope the Chinese models catch up soon so I can stop contributing to the American economy.
I vividly recall that freedom of speech is racist now, so good riddance.