It makes me sad that people don’t see right through Anthropic’s gambit.

They want to position AI as an insurmountable threat in order to regulate away any future competitors. They’re trying to speedrun regulatory capture.

Which safety commitments did they back away from? My understanding is that they believe safety can only be researched from the frontier, and so they're trying to be pragmatic to stay near the frontier (and viable) in their choices.

From what I know, the "books3" dataset was normalised in the LLM and research ecosystem, where collected datasets were seen as valid to train on and/or fair use. I'm not sure any of the major frontier companies are free from that, if we don't believe it was fair use.

I do think most of their choices are explainable by "they just believe in agi risk". You truly wouldn't want non-agi-pilled companies to train on your data and approach the frontier if you were worried. You might slightly hurt your own business with safety filters (that no one else does) if you were worried. They are less worried about other "moral" decisions like "sharing" if they conflict with AGI: the research they still share is all of their safety research.

This definitely doesn't make them "good", but they do seem fairly "consistent". Most of these issues were talked about publicly by the founders long before Anthropic was founded and/or the AI race+money appeared.

I will give Anthropic credit for standing up against the department of war. The bar is incredibly low, but not doing domestic surveillance and not creating autonomous weapons are laudable.

That doesn’t mean I like them pirating books and being shady about tokens and paternalistic “safety”

> Anthropic leadership

Which one? The main bit that reports to Daniela Amodei, or the little comfort blanket cabinet around Dario and his "chief of staff"?

There is a leadership branch that can pretend to be morally qualified and aware and to think about the big picture and ethics.

It is at least somewhat remote from the bit that is doing the actual business things.

It's hard for me to see much difference between Amodei and Sama. My guess is they're both savvy SV CEOs who will bend their message, alliances and principles pretty far if that's what it takes to get ahead. Musk and Zuck feel like something else entirely, with all the reactionary imagery, populist bullshit and the societal damage around their platforms.

It's almost like running a trillion-dollar business with neck-to-neck competition against other frontier labs and even state-sponsored efforts requires some ethical trade-off.

> Anthropic leadership repeatedly presents themselves as uniquely morally qualified to steward agi and decide how humanity should get access to it.

  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." — C.S. Lewis.

Pirating books is just straight up morally correct. I don't like Anthropic's bullshit "safety" filters, but training on shadow library data? Yeah no, it makes sense.

It makes a lot more sense than having to work around copyright by scanning out physical books. Unfortunately, one was ruled legal and the other was not.

Yeah this would be a great point if it were true and they didn’t give Mythos access to companies to fix bugs, which they did and have.

It’s genuinely a difficult question. Not black and white. The models are really good at finding bugs, as demonstrated by people using Fable to reverse engineer. People make it sound like he’s just making it up.

Dario's "ethical" look is also kinda sus. I hate to use ad hominem, but the dude's wife literally pitched a porn film to Epstein even after he was a convicted registered sex offender [1]. Dario is also really sinophobic (it is commonly claimed in Chinese AI circles that his former employment at Baidu triggered him so much that he harbors a personal grudge against the entire race).

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/08/14/who-is-...

Pretty much. That's even worse imho.

I just don’t see how people have looked at what has happened with Mythos and the deluge of fixes from companies, then come to this conclusion.

He has a really hard job. He errs on the side of conservatism in releasing and then people get Really Mad.

Safeguards on cybersecurity are not great for Anthropic revenue! As evidenced by people getting pissed, moving to Sol, and them having a smaller market for what Fable can do.

It’s clearly bad for revenue and not great advertising to say, “you can’t use this but here is a nerfed version that will annoy you and not solve important problems.”

Technology doesn't just spring into being, there will always be comments on the organizations that developed it. If you don't like them or find them repetitive, it is far easier to collapse them and move on then bend a stranger to your will

I get it, but the underlying problem is: we don't have a society-wide, effective solution to counterbalancing extractive systems. Lacking a reliable label, we have to constantly signal what's on the ingredients list.

What I'm tired of is the top story (or five) on HN every day announcing Spark Opus Fable Grok Gemini v4.1i3-F. Like, who actually cares? Are people excited for the new benchmarks? Is it interesting to read the model cards? And look, part of my job is to use these things and part of my job is to pick EC2 servers, too. The front page of HN is increasingly resembling one of those endless AWS pricing lists.

And yeah, I don't like any of the people or companies building LLMs either. At least the griping is somewhat interesting by comparison. The model isn't news. The news on Hacker News is that other professionals feel the same way.

> If you don’t like it […], then maybe just […] stay silent.

You might consider following your own advice.

That's not how any of this works my man. Must be nice to think you live a life where neither has had a profound negative impact on your day to day

yeah, we should all just stfu because one internet dude is tired of hearing it

Staying silent is unfortunately how fascism festers.

Not liking something because the embodiment of corporate malfeasance is a rational way to decide what products to support.

[dead]

Zuck's bad PR is to blame here. Not the commenters. He should fix that.

Anduril makes this same complaint whenever their job posts get dumped on. Same idea. Fix your bad PR, buddies :)

> But the post is about Muse Spark 1.3. What do you think about that?

That:

- like all models it was trained on stolen data

- additionally it was trained on Facebook users who were all opted in to AI training with a convoluted 10+ step process to opt-out of

> If you don’t like it because Meta made it, then maybe just don’t use it and stay silent.

Why should anyone stay silent?

Well what do you want? Presenting clear, desirable, and achievable visions and trying to build consensus for how AI should develop is crucial at this point in time.

Totally fine with open weight, since other people can provide it and Meta isn’t making money. I’d use an AWS-hosted version.

I am finding Poolside's a decent model.-

He didn't say 90% of the coding jobs. He said LLMs would write 90% of the code. As in be LLM generated.

They don't all suck equally.

Here's the order, from best to worst.

Amodei

Google

SamA

Zuck

Elon

How is this a tangential annoyance or a generic tangent?

> Meta announces they have a new model, demonstrating its capabilities.

> Parent comment states „regardless of this model‘s specific capabilities, if I can avoid it I will.“

"Avoid generic tangents" / "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances."

That's pretty much 90% of HN these days.

Apple releases a new iPhone? Here comes the flood of decade-old complaints about long-discontinued Mac butterfly keyboards and walled gardens.

Microsoft releases a new version of Windows? Here come the gripes about Azure.

Google changes something in GMail? Play Store!

It's like there's an army of bots out there determined to reduce the productivity of the Western tech bubble by diverting everyone into endless circular arguments about absolutely nothing of relevance to the topic at hand.

[dead]

someone expressing their view of meta which is on point by the way.

Enabled genocide in Myanmar