Consider this quote from the main article...

"When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

This is fearful stuff on all sides, and none of the people involved might realistically be able to navigate the danger.

▲

baq 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

the whole thing playing out as expected. if you think about it, the only question is the timeline.

the next model with a gap to mythos as mythos is to opus will be controlled technology from the get-go. the one after it may be top secret.

▲

khalic 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Open models will catch up eventually, TOTL models will get distilled into smaller, more efficient versions, it’s not something you can moat indefinitely

▲

baq 6 hours ago | parent [-]

who is going to continue to publish these open models and why would they keep doing it?

▲

losvedir 5 hours ago | parent [-]

China will, but they'll only be useable by hackers torrenting it and running it on small GPU clusters you learn about on IRC. Everything old is new again.

	▲	baq 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have no idea why people keep thinking this

▲

pbhjpbhj 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or OpenAI will pay Trump's regime's bribe and they'll suddenly realise that it does not need controlling and they're free to sell it?

	▲	baq 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		that's... an optimistic take I think

▲

khalic 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That part just sounds like hyperbole at best, conspiracy at worst.

By that logic, anybody who values safety has a god complex? It’s absurd…

▲

chasil 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I am just quoting the parent article.

"What this degradation represented was both the capability and willingness of Anthropic to silently alter its models to achieve its policy preferences. In other words, Anthropic willfully validated some of its critics’ worst fears in terms of being a supply chain risk."

▲

khalic 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Again, hyperbole and assumption of evil intent because… they take precautions? Nice prose doesn’t dispense you from forming a sound hypothesis

	▲	penteract 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The article makes a coherent argument: a) Anthropic believe that AI is an extinction level risk and that they are the only leading AI lab which takes safety seriously. In combination this puts them in the position of believing that they are the only ones who can save the world, which is reasonable to call a god complex. b) Anthropic are engaging in actions which aquire and consolidate power in the form of control over powerful AI. c) "The history of brilliant people convinced they know what humanity needs is a sordid one, precisely because they have convinced themselves that their intentions are good, justifying actions that very much are not." I'm describing claims from the article and would not word them so strongly myself. But this explicitly does not assume evil intent.