| ▲ | US allows Anthropic to release Mythos to 'trusted partners'(reuters.com) |
| 234 points by bobrenjc93 4 hours ago | 212 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | kristopolous 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now? |
| |
| ▲ | GolfPopper 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife |
| |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | But it was applied using principles of the rule of law with clear regulatory frameworks. This is not that | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | sagarm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Jumping in to reflexively defend the admin again, I see. Is there any policy from this admin you don't support? | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | typeofhuman an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only correct reply. | | |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | y1n0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | sharts 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Free for me, not for thee | |
| ▲ | rikfckfj284 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Now? | |
| ▲ | seemaze 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | m4nu3l 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | orangecat 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gverrilla 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. But that was the “big government democrat” argument that republicans said was evil and un American. |
| |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you laugh you’re a communist and against Christianity and part of a satanic cabal. | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | paytonjjones 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | tick_tock_tick 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | ThunderSizzle 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The courts struck down many Biden policies as well. People just give those a pass because "SCOTUS is rigged" or something... |
|
| |
| ▲ | dualvariable 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't forget the blatant grift and corruption. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4lx87 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We don’t have to guess. Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden — which was rescinded by Trump when he took office. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statement... | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden How well does it stand up to Mythos? | |
| ▲ | JPKab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also free speech/the first amendment and various other rights people are supposed to have but don't in practice. | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fourth Amendment, through corporate data purchase or exfiltration. |
| |
| ▲ | az226 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not just that, Biden administration started with some AI regulation that the Trump administration nixed, and then outright banning models. Lunacy. | |
| ▲ | JPKab 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It'll never stop amusing me how blind we are to politicians that are "on our side". | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then cry as you look for the free market/small government leaders. | |
| ▲ | jknoepfler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Republicans trust Americans with guns and not an LLM. That should tell you something. |
| |
| ▲ | bilsbie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which party is? | | | |
| ▲ | ryanar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | its all trump, he is a megalomaniac, not affiliated with any party but his own | | |
| ▲ | afavour 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it's not just him, it's the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | | |
| ▲ | atlgator 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At least in part that's because they've stopped legislating. The executive now basically just does whatever it wants. | |
| ▲ | jLaForest 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The right is fractured is several ways but there is one unifying value: unquestioning support for Trump | | |
| ▲ | atlgator an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gkoberger 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ryanmcbride 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it's actually the entire party that's propping him up. If it was just trump he would be living on the street. | |
| ▲ | keyle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It seems people can flip that coin whenever it suits them. | |
| ▲ | servercobra 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And yet the rest of the party falls in behind him. | |
| ▲ | malcolmgreaves 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | jmyeet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The it did a pretty shit job of it. Within 100 years it was killing hundreds of thousands to fight against that purpose. | | |
| ▲ | jmyeet 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. [1]: https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/artic... [2]: https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/state-imposed-fo... | |
| ▲ | mullingitover 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | chopete3 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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? |
|
| ▲ | tracerbulletx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | until it isn't, i.e. certain rulings over the last couple years... | | |
| |
| ▲ | tick_tock_tick 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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? | |
| ▲ | sigmar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The ATF was created by an act of congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 | |
| ▲ | standardUser 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would say, "sitting smugly astride the monster's back, confident that they will never be fed to it". |
| |
| ▲ | UncleEntity 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | isn't this materially different in that it creates a kind of class system within the US? | | |
| ▲ | varenc 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | how so? Is it a class system that only Raytheon employees can work on cruise missiles not the average citizen? | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | the continued exploits of the same kind of class system the US has always had |
|
| |
| ▲ | skywhopper 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It has never taken a constitutional amendment to make something illegal. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Malboro cigarettes may once again be sold, but Newport remains banned for everyone except large purchasers that have paid the appropriate bri... fees." | |
| ▲ | verelo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious. | | |
| |
| ▲ | motbus3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder what kind of emergency will happen when real elections get around | |
| ▲ | az226 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And even if a court places an injunction on the ban, it's possible Anthropic will still choose to keep it unavailable. | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They did. Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. § 4511 );Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4812 are just two of them. | |
| ▲ | tchalla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you remember the export controls on Covid vaccine material during the height of coronavirus? I do |
|
|
| ▲ | andrewchambers 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners' |
| |
| ▲ | A_D_E_P_T 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though. | | |
| ▲ | slashdave 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money" | | |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now. | | |
| ▲ | redcheeks 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | andy99 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | tbcj an hour ago | parent [-] | | Fable wasn’t available for a full week. It was released on June 9 and made unavailable June 12. | | |
| |
| ▲ | afavour 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time. | | |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mlinsey 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
| |
| ▲ | intrasight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could just ignore Trump as he has no authority to so limit a private company. | | |
| ▲ | mlinsey 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | exabrial 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How does my small company become a "trusted partner"? |
|
| ▲ | theturtletalks 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> 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. |
|
| ▲ | alanwreath 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | drcode 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | they're flailing is what they're doing | | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist? | | |
| ▲ | JackC 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tonyrice 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm looking forward to better open source models. Now I just need to afford the compute to run these models. |
|
| ▲ | Hawkenfall 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This appears to be only for Mythos 5 access, NOT Fable 5. |
| |
| ▲ | irthomasthomas 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So only 100 companies have exclusive access to frontier AI. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | sourthyme 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Aren't these the same models? | | |
| ▲ | qsxfthnkp2322 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Until the chinese make a comparable open source model at some point | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aesthesia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | paxys 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mythos doesn't have the strict safeguards of Fable and is only accessible by a very small number of pre-approved companies. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Alien1Being 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | plandis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | rcr-anti 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | nickthegreek an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | DANmode 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Safer? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | bastard_op 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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? |
|
| ▲ | avaer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Could you explain this like I'm 35? |
|
|
| ▲ | __natty__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And we get the news the same time OpenAI releases 5.6. What a coincidence? |
| |
| ▲ | mrandish 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | SwellJoe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "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. |
|
| ▲ | bluecalm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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? |
|
| ▲ | andai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Weren't they already doing that? |
|
| ▲ | truthbe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Open source should create a new license where it specifically doesn't allow release to these "trusted partners". |
|
| ▲ | outside1234 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is there a list of the partners that get access? That should be public, right? |
| |
|
| ▲ | sscaryterry 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought Fable was a "safer" Mythos?! |
| |
| ▲ | dchftcs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I suppose the point is that Mythos was released to a smaller set of partners anyway and Fable is for the masses. |
|
|
| ▲ | kdawag 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To the surprise of absolutely nobody following the news |
|
| ▲ | naturalmovement 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just because a policy is legal doesn't mean it cannot be disastrous. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "disastrous" seems hyperbolic to me. what disaster do you foresee? | | |
| ▲ | gensym an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | olalonde 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It feels the U.S. is moving closer to a textbook definition of crony capitalism. Really sad but unsurprising with the current administration. |
| |
| ▲ | mullingitover 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8 |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Havoc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | Henchman21 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is what “stacking the deck” looks like |
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wowee, just happens to be on the same day of OpenAI's Sol announcement. How convenient for Dario and Anthropic! |
| |
| ▲ | __natty__ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This should perhaps not be surprising considering the president. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hmokiguess 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I identify as a trusted partner, can I have one Mythos please. |
|
| ▲ | pertymcpert 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would they allow Mythos but not Fable? Fable is the one with more guardrails. |
| |
| ▲ | layer8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To quote famed businessman and philosopher Eugene Krabs: "Money." |
|
|
| ▲ | jimmydoe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Congrats sama. Such a great sophisticated 5d chess move. |
| |
| ▲ | llelouch 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please explain. Do you think Altman wanted this to catch-up? | | |
| ▲ | jimmydoe an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | standardUser 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| * 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | bluecalm an hour ago | parent [-] | | They all get serious investments from public companies and a lot of public companies rely on those private labs buying stuff from them. |
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| america is worrying about a civil war and missing the corporate takeover |
|
| ▲ | zuzululu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| should see 5.6 any day now |
|
| ▲ | aryonoco 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Free for me, not for thee! I hope the Chinese models catch up soon so I can stop contributing to the American economy. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | chungus_amongus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| despicable |
|
| ▲ | tristanj 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Original source: https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2026/us-releases-power... |
| |
|
| ▲ | frogperson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Who needs freedom of speech anyway? I'm just glad the trump admin is looking out for by best interests. /s |
| |
| ▲ | vlian2088 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Who needs freedom of speech anyway? I vividly recall that freedom of speech is racist now, so good riddance. | |
| ▲ | truthbe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sarcasm Detected, -40 Ameripoints have been deducted from your account. Have a nice day! |
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TL;DR - OpenAI and Anthropic are both allowed to ship their most powerful models to a small number of companies pre-approved by Trump. |
|
| ▲ | skywhopper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why post a content free link to Twitter for this? |