Anthropic mostly did it to themselves by intentionally and repeatedly trying to frame their model as an imminent existential crisis instead of just focusing on it being regular iterations upon a useful technology that can also be misused.

I think their previous messaging was supposed to somehow lead to a moat with them being tucked safely away in the castle, but it demonstrated a child-like grasp of how regulatory capture tends to work in practice. Their hyperbole was always vastly more likely to bet met with Reagan's 9 words than a solid regulatory moat.

As soon as they dropped the hyperbole and just got to releasing incremental improvements, everything was perfectly fine. Go figure.

▲

mwigdahl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In other words, "Look how she was dressed, she was asking for it."

This argument is BS, it has everything to do with Anthropic's resistance to the DoD's strongarm tactics in trying to force their desired contract terms on them.

	▲	dspillett 43 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not quite. They were running around shouting “look how much of a danger we might be!”, so more akin to them actively saying “we want it, come and give it to us” than to just looking a particular way. Though they aren't the only company to play that game, so there is probably more to it than just that. OpenAI's president giving millions to MAGA Inc and them not getting the same treatment might not be complete coincidences.
	▲	nullbio 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Actually, it's the opposite. Anthropic were trying to strongarm the DoD into getting a seat at the table.
	▲	cyanydeez 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Important to note, OpenAI vs Anthropic are both assholes in different orthogonals. In times like these, i think its important to track whats happening the way we track entropy. That is: theres far >> more ways to be an asshole than well behaved. That doesnt mean we can equate assholes, but the question is which states of entropy are annealable and which are not. I posit Altman is not. Amodei is a open question.
	▲	elonfboy 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yup

▲

Topfi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am struggling to see how "oops, our models consistently escape sandboxing and did major intrusions into third-parties" is a better comms strat vs Anthropics (who mind you, also had models attacking third-parties in a much more limited, but I feel still egregious manner, which shouldn't happen or be possible even once, but at least they seem to change their approach upon that information).

Imagine, for a second, if the Hugging Face incident happened at a lab that did not talk like Anthropic but also wasn't US-based such as Z.AI, DeepSeek or Moonshot. Think their rhetoric would mean no one would care?

> just got to releasing incremental improvements, everything was perfectly fine.

Maybe missing something, but the only incremental release before and after the Anthropic restrictions got lifted was Fable 5.1, released three days ago.

▲

nullbio an hour ago | parent [-]

How is posting messages on a message board a "major intrusion"? Or are you purely talking about the HF incident?

▲

Topfi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"into third-parties". Yeah, HF was meant by that. Also why I mentioned Anthropic also having intrusions outside their lab [0]. Theirs were not merely as extensive or long coordinated (as far as we know), yet I feel strongly all the same that neither should happen given the safety focus that both labs purport.

Mind you, unintended/unauthorised "message board" also is just a nice, euphemistic way, to describe what happened in a manner that, thinking about it, is likely in the interest of OpenAI as it can make the severity and effort taken sound less than it was. The OpenAI models didn't use any actual, sanctioned platform to exchange messages in a manner the lab expected or planned for. They used directory names (in one instance) to exchange messages including sharing exploits, they created something akin to a message board via exploits, which if we are honest and very strict, could also be seen as intrusion, albeit inside the org. If I broke into my employers server and left message somewhere for another to find, that'd also be intrusion in the general sense.

[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cyber...

▲

dghlsakjg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If applicants for an elite college or internship program at a FAANG company were found to have colluded in this way to cheat on a test/interview, I suspect that it would be a pretty major scandal.

Why should we let equivalent fraudulent behavior from a non human system - that explicitly shouldn’t do this - slide?

▲

nullbio 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying it should be let to slide, but I'm not a fan of the hyperbole surrounding this event. They've already faced significant heat for the HF incident, I think they've learned their lesson. But this is now just being used to drum up fear, which can only mean one thing: Less access for you, more access for the privileged class. The biggest threat we face is centralization of power. OpenAI are one of the good ones because they're actually pushing for everybody to have a fair share of access to the frontier, not just a small privileged elite of billionaires, politicians and megacorp executives. If Anthropic got their way, we'd all be using a censored watered down slop-pistol while they swallow the Earth's economy and enslave us all. I'm sure they'll be investing considerable resources into ensuring that this "news" makes the mainstream media cycle as prominently as imaginable.

	▲	Topfi 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I think they've learned their lesson. Why do you think that? Intrusions by OpenAI models continued after the Hugging Face was published and acknowledged by OpenAI. They did not change their behaviour after multiple incidents, both internal and external, which mind you, some before the worst. They could have prevented the Hugging Face incident. Simply reckless.

▲

cubefox 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Anthropic mostly did it to themselves

That is absurd, the US government was mainly at fault, not Anthropic.

▲

johndhi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

both can be true:

-the US gov't is stupid and overly aggressive and absurd

-Anthropic for reasons no one can quite conceive keeps describing every product release of theirs as an imminent threat to civilization (and simultaneously keeps pushing the market forward as fast as they possibly can).

▲

KPGv2 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

By the pigeonhole principle, "mostly A" and "mainly B" cannot both be true if A and B are not the same entity

▲

cubefox 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They never said Mythos was an imminent threat to civilization. You are constructing a straw man.

	▲	toomim 20 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They said it was too dangerous to release before the companies that run internet for civilization could patch the holes it was finding. That's a threat to civilization.
	▲	collingreen 11 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's the party line so people forget the week it actually happened - anthropic said they would work with DoD/DoW but with two conditions: 1. Kill orders from ai decisions had to go through a human 2. The govt couldn't use their models for illegal surveillance of Americans Hegseth threw a fit, Trump called them traitors and a supply chain risk, openai said they wouldn't require those restrictions and got all the contracts. Both companies are corrupt and dangerously reckless and have doomsaying advertising (50% of jobs destroyed vs money won't have meaning anymore). One didnt kiss the ring correctly.

▲

psychoslave an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>no one can quite conceive

Isn’t it like their main goal is attention capture, and existential threat is extremely effective at capturing human attention? Combine that with the "There is no such thing as bad publicity" mindset, and this explain it all, doesn’t it?

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-a...

▲

Certhas 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is such an absurd take given what we know about the hugging face attack. The problem has emphatically not been that someone was misusing the technology.