Pay? This is the best marketing they could have hoped for.

▲ stingraycharles 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yup, getting Cartmanland marketing vibes here. “It’s the best theme park ever, and you can’t come!” does wonders for creating demand.

I wouldn’t the surprised if all this were actually orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.

▲ naturalmovement 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Brilliant analogy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuG7_acmdA

▲ lwyrup 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Doubtful. Fable 5 is insanely good it’ll sell itself. No need for unscrupulous advertising tactics.

What is a “foreign national” is more what I’m wondering. Like is it a “Non-US Citizen”? Do US citizens abroad count?

▲ eks391 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Foreign national is anyone who doesn't have legally recognized citizenship of the USA. So citizens living abroad aren't barred, nor would dual citizens be.

▲ simoncion 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What is a “foreign national” is more what I’m wondering.

The following quoted text is from the Definitions section of 8 USC § 1101, which is reproduced at [0]. (Though, you will probably have to scroll up a bit to be able to read subsection (a)(21), which is the thing I'm linking to.)

  (21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
  (22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
  (23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

From this, it's fairly clear that a "foreign national" is someone owing permanent allegiance to a foreign (that is, non-US) state. What's not immediately clear to me is whether a US citizen can also be a "foreign national", [1] and how that would affect access to things from which foreign nationals are barred. [2]

EDIT: For a more official source of this information, you might be able to check out [3] and/or [4]. After examining and interacting with those pages, one might see why one might go to an unofficial source for casual inspection of this information.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_21

[1] I think they can be.

[2] I'm very uncertain.

[3] <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...>

[4] <https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapter12/subc...>

▲ bvierra01 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A "foreign national" is any person who is not a US Citizen:

"The United States Department of State defines a “foreign national” as anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder." [0]

A foreign national is a person or organization who is not a citizen of the United States, and who is a citizen of a foreign country. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) uses the term "alien" to refer to a person who is not a United States citizen, and does not use the term "foreign national."[1]

[0] https://www.orc.msstate.edu/faq/what-department-states-defin...

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreign_national

	▲	throwaway2037 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I also found this: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary `> Foreign national: A person without U.S. citizenship or nationality (may include a stateless person). This term is synonymous with “alien”`

▲ amanaplanacanal 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I owe allegiance to no state. I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the world.

It's kind of a weird definition. I would guess most people's nationality is more an accident of birth than anything else.

▲ SXX 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a chance they'll lose on some income if it takes longer.

Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of competitors.

▲

platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Anthropic has been angling for regulatory capture this entire time, to an even greater extent than OpenAI.

▲

blackqueeriroh 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Y’all really have convinced yourselves that people in the industry are far, far smarter than they are, and far more manipulative than they are.

You see the state of the country and you think it’s a nefarious master plan instead of a bunch of opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated populace who forget to vote or believe stupid slogans on TV.

Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out????

▲

tmp10423288442 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Anthropic in particular has been angling for regulatory capture (with themselves in control, of course) pretty explicity.

▲

nl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI."[1]

Anthropic is calling for regulation. For example they endorsed CA SB-53 that even OpenAI and Google thought was too much: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-is-endorsing-sb-53

They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).

They might not want this specific action, but they do want regulation on their own terms. That really is regulatory capture.

> Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out

They don't think is is "idiot stuff" - they are doing it openly and shouting to everyone who will listen! Read Dario's latest essay[1]:

> Many policymakers are showing increased openness to taking action, and it's been encouraging to see our peers come around to the same positions we've been advocating for over the past few years.

[snip]

> Thus, in 2025, Anthropic supported transparency legislation, helping to pass SB 53 in California, RAISE in NY, SB 315 in Illinois (in early 2026), and advocating for a transparency standard at the federal level.

[snip]

> It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI.

> I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action.

> The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks.

I'm not sure why you think they don't want to be "found out"!

	▲	platinumrad 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models). Whenever I hear some octogenarian senator babble about the evils of distillation I assume Amodei (or maybe Altman) fed them the script, word for word.

▲

butWhathuh 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated populace

Over worked and over stimulated is the intentional method and means these people well aware of the neurological consequences rely on

▲

platinumrad 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's leave aside the "smarter" part, since I made no claim to the effect and I don't think it's very relevant in the first place.

Do you really not think that people like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei angle for regulatory capture? It happens in every other industry, from automobiles to tax preparation software. Why do you think that AI is any different?

▲

whattheheckheck 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's see their private journals, private conversations, messages to peers, all meetings and every side conversation, and then tell me its unintentional.

Thats incredibly infuriating to hear someone say.

Obviously no one is absolute control of everything but physics is essentially shows nothing other than information determinism. There has to have been a thought of intention in the minds of these people as they play in the largest arena publicly.

"No one is doing it intentionally because I think theyre dumber then I think other people think they are"

"They're taking advantage of people intentionally"

"People dont have political power to do anything about their victory laps"

▲

lazide 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s almost like you haven’t read the project 2025 doc.

Hint: it can be both.

▲ awaisras 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

don't think so; retail investors would see this as a barrier that the government can place anytime they want, and assume that government intervention is constantly lurking in the shadows.

▲ 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ hsuduebc2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else, because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT 5.5.

▲ p-e-w 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No it’s not. A company that finds itself the target of potentially crippling government intervention is not an attractive investment.

	▲	r-w 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It might be if all you're seeking is large-cap stocks with lots of volatility you can leverage that are here to stay for the long haul. Also, the market doesn't seem to believe that Trump will be in power forever.