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.

▲

c2h5oh 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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

they're flailing is what they're doing

▲

conception 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They are collecting tribute is what they are doing.

	▲	altcognito 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		And they are just getting started. It sounds insidious, and it probably would be if they weren’t so damn dumb.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist?

	▲	digitaltrees 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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"
	▲	nozzlegear 19 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Is there any evidence at all that would convince you they're just blowing smoke up our asses in pursuit of money?
	▲	JackC 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.