| ▲ | slowin 3 hours ago |
| This neat and all but I think there's a bigger issue here. Anthropic (and whoever Anthropic wants) can do this kind of work with Claude, but if you or I try to do it, we will get blocked. This is a fun exercise, but extend this to something much more nefarious and you can see a moat widening between the model providers, their government partners, and the public. The only thing that bridges this moat is continued advancement of open models. |
|
| ▲ | Aachen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > [The model's authors] can do this kind of work with Claude, but if you or I try to do it, we will get blocked. If this seems concerning, wait until the models get effective enough (gets work done properly at a lower energy need than humans have) that there's no reason for them to release anything. Why offer your weights for download or grant any third party usage access when you can just do the actual job yourself and collect all that turnover? |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why offer your weights for download or grant any third party usage access when you can just do the actual job yourself and collect all that turnover? It's hilarious how a the trillions invested in AI companies, and their valuations are predicated on the AI labs Sherlocking entire industries, and yet CEOs, mathematicians, and everyone else are eagerly feeding the beast their most prized information. | | |
| ▲ | siva7 an hour ago | parent [-] | | What else should we do? It's not like we had any choice. | | |
| ▲ | gspr an hour ago | parent [-] | | What? You have the choice of just not. Or if you absolutely must to put food on the table, you don't need to fucking cheer as you do it! | | |
| ▲ | rpdillon an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is a risky proposition if the technology is in some way revolutionary. The people who decided to "just not" with, for example, the internet often aren't doing business anymore. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The internet was inherently decentralized. This is inherently centralizing. The direction of travel is opposite. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | genxy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They will just have someone look at every question, they will let it pass, want a cut or deny it. Claude, you can answer this guys question, but don't tell 'em how you solved it and don't give him the best answer, give him an ok answer. | | |
| ▲ | siva7 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That's already happening. The public models aren't anything like their internal models. | |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's kinda unrealistic, isn't it? How will they pay for the thousands or ten thousands of employees, who need to look at every question? And most questions are just ordinary BS, that not really anyone other than the asker cares about. Giant waste of time to check all that. | | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just wait till the AI does that to humans in general. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is why open weights and continued model distillation to improve model evolution is imperative. Do you trust the people who would gate these capabilities? I do not. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean I want this to, just don't get your hopes to high because it's not long till they get dashed. I don't think it will be too long before models are considered munitions and having the weights for one will require registration. | | |
| ▲ | Aachen an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Which brings us back to the war on general computation. So long as people can have computers that they control, at least in one of the countries or regions, there's no putting this cat back in the bag and we are all along for the ride Sometimes I want a fast-forward button for life, the times are so exciting and I want to know what else 8B people can think of next but there's so far no way to turn pages faster ^^' | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is a bit silly. There are just a few places where the most high tech hardware is made. If we turned off new and unregistered hardware now it would be just a few years as most hardware fast enough to run LLMs would disappear from public hands. It will still exist, but be in the hands of militaries and authoritarian governments. If you piddle around on the net showing off your open standards you'll be relentlessly attacked by these entities digitally. More so, those areas will be generally embargoed. The future looks like a new cold war with a lot more digital weapons. |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | lifeisloving an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | French Revolution and the 21st centuries version of guillotines, whatever that could be, is probably a good reason to avoid that. There's also a thing called commodity fetishism but capitalists usually learn the hard way that things created with machines without human input miss the essence of why we're willing to pay for something. Its why a handmade watch is $100k and a casio is $100, or a handmade sweater identical to a machine made goes for 10x. They could also just make us so poor and anxious that we beg to fight eachother in wars. | | |
| ▲ | cudla100 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Another labor theory of value patient. | | |
| ▲ | lifeisloving an hour ago | parent [-] | | Gun to your head, you have to see one of two movies with the same plot and characters. They are identical movies. One is produced by 500 humans collaborating and the second is completely generated by an AI that can actually make a movie A single individual or small group of people who own the GPUs profit from the AI version, and the human version provides a salary to 500 humans/families. Which one are you buying tickets for and choosing to spend 2 hours watching? | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | randomblock1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe, but that's what the cyber program is for. Nobody knew if the seed was fine or a backdoor. If it was a backdoor, and Claude helped you find it as a normal person, Anthropic would get bad PR. If you're a verified security researcher, actually that's fantastic and Anthropic would get good PR and everybody claps. Anthropic wants to IPO, they don't want another Fable shutdown situation. To be clear I would prefer the cyber safeguards to be less restrictive, I think they're currently too much. I often go to open models because of it. But there are likelier reasons to restrict cyber than world domination. |
| |
| ▲ | areoform 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Maybe, but that's what the cyber program is for
Why? > and Claude helped you find it as a normal person, Anthropic would get bad PR
Why?Why are we celebrating and encouraging the walling off of the global intellectual columns? The idea that you can't reverse engineer things, make things, learn about biology or physics without permission is strange to me. These machines have been trained on the sum intellectual output of humanity, the global intellectual commons, and are being used to close off that commons? I would be OK with their right to create such restrictions if they weren't lobbying the Government to restrict others, thereby ensuring that they control humanity's intellectual commons well into the future. Who are they to say what I can learn or can't learn? Who are they to control what I can or can't do with these tools? Perhaps I'm naive, but I think it's better for humans and the machines if we can all think, learn and build. But then again, I'm the kind of person who rejects the doomer pill. Reject this. | | |
| ▲ | reassess_blind 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Because AI-assisted hacking is not something we should allow to run rampant with the most advanced models, prior to AI-assited cybersecurity catching up. | |
| ▲ | Daishiman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The idea that you can't reverse engineer things, make things, learn about biology or physics without permission is strange to me. These machines have been trained on the sum intellectual output of humanity, the global intellectual commons, and are being used to close off that commons? I mean this is the standard of biochem research right now. You can't just order 50 gallons of TNT off Amazon and neither can you get live viruses from a lab just because you want to do research. | | |
| ▲ | areoform 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | OK, so then no problem, why are Anthropic restricting my ability to learn and reason? | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Because they can and there is no law against it. And really they aren't restricting any of that. I've never had Claude stop me from going to the library and reading a book. You don't have a legal right to do anything you want with their model. And if you don't like that you are going to have to convince politicians to enact new laws to change that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | solyin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because there are good and bad people in the world, and if I ask Claude "how do I make cocaine" and it gives me a thorough recipe, it doesn't know if I'm being intellectually curious or trying to become the next Pablo Escobar. They're Anthropic, and because they made Claude, they get to say what we can do with it. Which, I agree, is total bullshit. If I buy a Ford car and I can do whatever I want with it. Drive to work, drive for Uber, set it on fire; plowing into a crowd of protestors is covered by existing laws against vehicular manslaughter. Ford doesn't get a say. But because cars are so ubiquitous and a known technology, there's no blowback to Ford if I commit crimes with my car that I bought from them. If I commit crimes and Claude helped, Anthropic is gonna get sued (there's already litigation against the labs for deaths), and they don't want that. In a properly free market, we'd have regulations that prohibit labs from vertical integration so they have to release and sell a model and another company hosts it and sell access to it. Americanism, America's implementation of capitalism doesn't have such regulations though (and how would that even work?) so we're stuck with Anthropic having that power. The fear, justified or not, is that a terrorist is going to use Claude to make sarin nerve gas and bomb subway stations, or the digital equivalent. Could you live with that on your conscience? I don't think I could, but fortunately for me, I don't work at Anthropic so don't have to answer that real life trolly problem. | | |
| ▲ | whatshisface 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >if I ask Claude "how do I make cocaine" I am amazed at how a technical gloss can obscure basic rights. That's legal! It's in chemistry / agronomy books, freely available in libraries. I have the right to tell you how that is done, and you have the right to read what I write. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Because this is how the world works An LLM isn't a book. You can still go buy the books you want. An LLM, especially as they get more advanced, are agents. You can ask them do to things and they can interact with tools to do things. You're free to print a cocaine book. You're not free to incorporate it into a cocaine making machine without violating numerous laws. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You are entirely free to build a cocaine making machine in most countries. It is actually using it to produce cocaine that is a crime. In reasonable countries, this is exactly how it works. You can own lockpicks, practice picking locks, and even publish detailed instructions on how to pick locks. It's only when you pick someone else's lock that a crime is committed. Limiting access to tools and knowledge benefits the wealthy and privileged. Knowledge should proliferate, that is how the world has worked long before I was born and god willing that is how it will work long after I die. | |
| ▲ | SR2Z an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are entirely free to build a cocaine making machine in most countries. It is actually using it to produce cocaine that is a crime. In reasonable countries, this is exactly how it works. You can own lockpicks, practice picking locks, and even publish detailed instructions on how to pick locks. It's only when you pick someone else's lock that a crime is committed. Limiting access to tools and knowledge benefits the wealthy and privileged. | | |
| ▲ | selimthegrim an hour ago | parent [-] | | I have some bad news for you about what happens if the cops find you with lockpicking tools. |
| |
| ▲ | hgoel an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can program a computer to do things and they can interact with tools to do things too. Doesn't justify restricting what you can do with them. If you program a computer to make cocaine for you, you're the one violating the law. If you ask an LLM to do the same for you, you're the one violating the law. The LLM's capabilities are irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You sweet summer child. Cool, so I'll have you make an LLM that can make cosine, then I'll provide you paid access to the machine to can ask the right question to do it illegally. Then when you get caught and blame me we'll both be in court defending ourselves. You're argument is "doesn't justify". This is a private corporation, not a government. There is no freedom of speech law involved here if the corporation says no. Now, when the government tells LLM corporations that there are limits they will gladly agree. Next, the government will classify the LLMs as munitions and you'll be spending the next 50 years fighting on reversing that when a big chunk of the population is anti-AI enough to let them do it. After that will be bans and registration on hardware. There are two things that you are confusing. One is what you'd like to happen in an open data world like existed after the cold war. And then there is what is going to happen, and it's going to be messy, authoritarian, and closed. And you will lose the openness that had been occurring up to this point. There is no world in which the general public agrees to wide open access to info-hazards, and there are people that will ensure enough disasters happen to close that future. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sailfast an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ford actually will tell you now if you can or cannot do something with their vehicles. They’re also likely tracking you. That said - there likely were the same issues with cars in early days and then we got a body of settled case law that let the car companies off the hook for this and put responsibility on the user unless a manufacturing defect was the cause. In the case of models, knowledge has historically always been dangerous! Is the library liable if a kid figures out how to do chemistry and builds a device? What about YouTube? I find it hard to believe this would hold up in court over time. So far, the only cases I’ve seen are when AI has encouraged self-harm which does in fact seem like a legit defect. Gatekeeping knowledge like this will only serve to enable those that break the law, not protect, in my judgment. And just so this isn’t pure fodder for the machine - torch staple must of course infant music verb noun right? :) | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >use Claude to make sarin nerve gas and bomb subway stations, or the digital equivalent. Could you live with that on your conscience? People have always been able to do this before Claude. The information is out there and if you use a VPN there's not much they can do. The existence of information isn't the blocker for why attacks don't happen. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is so undershooting of what LLMs are capable of it's no wonder you're thinking they are just like books. | | |
| ▲ | simonra 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You sound highly optimistic about the capabilities of LLMs, which makes me curious about the path you see to furthering quality of life at scale. What do you see as the main obstacles to LLMs brewing me beer on demand at my home without involving me past the prompt, and when do you foresee we'll overcome them? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | landr0id 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Maybe, but that's what the cyber program is for. I have been in the cyber program since around the time it first went public and recently renewed it with the updated program. You still trivially hit guadrails. I was trying to reverse engineer some bit of 20-year-old software that already has known, unmitigated exploits and it still downgraded me. | |
| ▲ | verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > that's what the cyber program is for open weights are the better way imo, no elite gatekeepers please | |
| ▲ | saghm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But there are likelier reasons to restrict cyber than world domination. I mean, greed alone would seem to be enough, and it would be fully worth calling out as bullshit. | |
| ▲ | petesergeant 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anthropic would get bad PR I think the current administration would delight in harsher penalties |
|
|
| ▲ | novia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Anthropic gets zero of my money because their favorite word is no. I cannot figure out how to as an individual or a small startup request elevated permissions for the purposes of anything that they think might potentially be dangerous for someone who is not me to access. I have a background in cybersecurity. I have a background in life sciences. Can I put those skills to use to benefit humanity? Who knows. |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I imagine the path forward for the labs will be signing off on organizations/institutions rather than individuals. The risk/reward is way lopsided towards risk for the labs to vet individuals. Much easier to get an organization and have them take the blast if someone/something goes off the rails. I cannot in any universe see the labs putting themselves in a "We should never had given this person access" situation. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I cannot figure out how to as an individual or a small startup request elevated permissions… https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-cyber-verifi... https://portal.anthropic.com/programs/cvp | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "No." Dario keeps saying in interviews that AI hacking is not a problem because "the good guys will protect themselves with AI", but then gate-keeps. I submitted the form and it was rejected without reason. Now what? | |
| ▲ | novia 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thank you for the link. It looks like I will have to pay them to be considered, and even so, it looks unlikely that I'll be approved, since I have no CVEs credited to me, and I do not publicly post about security concerns. .......................................... The Cyber Verification Program is not available on free plans, so we are unable to approve you for the program. If your plan changes, you're welcome to apply again at any time. Regards, The Anthropic Safeguards Team .......................................... It has a cooldown of seven days. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jamienk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I feel like history is repeating itself - to many people AOL, Compuserve, MSN, et al seemed superior to "the web" in the early 1990s because they dumped money into making it slicker, licensed content, provided guardrails, made it easy for non-tech people... They had slick ads, were cultural phenoms, and people would take sides with the companies and think their arguments were strong and even obvious! |
|
| ▲ | Retr0id 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I worked on this specific task myself, using Claude, and I was not blocked (although I did not succeed!) |
| |
| ▲ | nicce 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Can you be sure that the model was not constrained for you, regardless? Since they can’t help too much with cyber, they might avoid some routes to not get completely flagged and that could influence for not finding the solution. | | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have seen behaviour a little like what you describe, in other tasks. When I was cracking the keys for Sony's camera firmware updates, Claude steered away from an obfuscated library, seemingly because it thought it might be related to licensing checks. It was indeed related to licensing checks, but also firmware update decryption. I had to explicitly tell Claude to write a deobfuscator for it, which it did, and eventually I had the keys. I later got Claude to crack their licensing checks too, by convincing it to write a "license checker" program, and then a second "test case generator" script for the license checker... (Opus 4.8 was smart enough to see what I was doing, but Opus 4.6 complied) |
| |
| ▲ | novia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A form of being blocked is sandbagging the models | | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I saw no evidence of sandbagging. And since it was an open problem, there'd be no reasonable way to "steer away" from the correct solution. |
| |
| ▲ | dogben 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same. I tried it just a few days ago. This news made me almost jump out of bed. | |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Same! |
|
|
| ▲ | comex 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm skeptical that this particular task would get blocked, though I could be wrong. But I agree that the moat is a problem in the general case. |
| |
| ▲ | A_D_E_P_T 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know about cryptography, but if you try anything in organic chemistry or biology, you virtually always get flagged and downgraded. As this is going on, Anthropic has opened up their own biology lab. > https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-quietly-sets-up-biol... There is very much a situation where people in frontier labs have access to exceptional capabilities that are being kept from the rest of us, and they're using it to strip-mine technical and scientific problems. | | |
| ▲ | sillysaurusx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I ran into this situation and was able to work around it by running a jailbroken Chinese model that turned out to be quite capable. I think it was Qwen. | |
| ▲ | derwiki 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Strip mining is a great phrase here, thank you | | | |
| ▲ | alwillis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There is very much a situation where people in frontier labs have access to exceptional capabilities that are being kept from the rest of us, and they're using it to strip-mine technical and scientific problems. If these capabilities were available to the public, someone somewhere would make a biological weapon or create a virus we've never seen before that could kill many millions of people. Stanford researchers have demonstrated it’s possible [1]. [1]: "AI creates 16 new viruses from scratch, showing promise for drug resistance and drawing warnings about potential for misuse" - https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/06/health/ai-viruses-bacteriopha... | | |
| ▲ | hgoel an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Biologists already addressed this idiocy a few weeks ago [1]. Making a biological weapon requires facilities that only some nation states and comparable companies, have access to. AI isn't going to magically assemble a DNA sequence for you and a computer design is not a guarantee of something that works. AI restrictionists love to pretend that their toys will, with the power of intelligence, magically bypass fundamental limitations of reality to conjure up fantastical weapons of mass destruction if they throw enough computers at the task. Unfortunately for them, that is not how the world works. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/researchers-ai-apocalypse-sk... | |
| ▲ | girvo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We already have controls for that: we control access to the reagents and equipment needed. Yknow, like we always have. Information is not dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument to me, but maybe my chemistry degree has me biased. | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts an hour ago | parent [-] | | Not to mention that making an actual novel virus requires thousands of dollars of equipment, serious lab skills, and even then is so dangerous that the wannabe terrorist is more likely to infect and kill themselves than cause mass causalities. It's the equivalent of making pipe bombs at home. The instructions are out in the public, but that's not a problem because the idiots that make pipe bombs blow themselves up more often than they succeed in doing terrorism. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jcomp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Broadly, the downgrading is still way too heavy-handed and clumsy. As of yesterday “How easy to crack is WPA2” downgraded to opus 4.8. Granted I could probably have phrased it differently and gotten a response, but the point is I shouldn’t have to. It can’t simultaneously be smart enough to reverse the ECDSA curve seed and not smart enough not to destroy the world by answering a trivial question with a scary word in it. | |
| ▲ | akersten 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At minimum we don't have access to "Claude thoughts" like the ones the article highlighted, right? That's part of the hidden reasoning? | |
| ▲ | petesergeant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fable 5.1 has downgraded me in the past week alone for the crimes of describing a coordinating server as "the C&C server" ([cyber]), for doing some statistical analysis on some toy Vigenère-ciphered text ([cyber]), and for asking it to help me find patterns in some semi-random text ([bio]), so it is fair to say I am not skeptical. | |
| ▲ | mike_d 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have access to Claude's "defensive" cyber model and it appears to take no issue with the prompt, but I suspect that is because it uses today's publication as the basis for an answer. In the past my attempts to work on crypto related problems have been met with needing the higher tier of "offensive" access. | |
| ▲ | richwater 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn't matter what is blocked today, it matters what is blocked tomorrow. If we allow these providers to promote regulatory capture they become the arbiter of what anyone is "allowed" to do | | |
| ▲ | ragequittah 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think when the open source models catch up (likely soon) we'll long for the days when companies could control it like this. I could easily see a teenager with openclaw and a single prompt causing millions of dollars in damage. Multiply that by the number of stupid people in the world and we have a problem. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dwedge 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Moat must have been written more times in the last 12 months than in all of history before that time. |
|
| ▲ | ronsor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know Anthropic models have a lot of insane, paranoid filters, but I don't remember them blocking cryptography work last I checked (some 3 months ago now). |
| |
| ▲ | vessenes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I routinely get rejected on elliptic curve related requests; often I can talk Claude back into some work on it. But it is surprisingly sensitive to talking about research cryptography in my experience. I’m not in their cyber program. | |
| ▲ | AkshatJ27 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 3 months ago is like years ago in the current AI landscape | |
| ▲ | AtNightWeCode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The cyber filter blocks really basic stuff all the time. People who are pro that bs should be forced to only eat with a spoon for the rest of their life. | | |
| ▲ | sillysaurusx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For me it refused to move Claude transcripts from point A to point B on my local machine. It kept getting flagged as reasoning extraction or something. The line of "It's my machine, I can move files wherever I want" shouldn't be crossed. Someday file managers are going to go extinct and LLMs will organize everything, and they shouldn't choose what files you can and can't access on your own computer. | |
| ▲ | therein 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you have a variable `const char *shellcode` in a fizzbuzz function, it is enough for it to lose its mind. | | |
| ▲ | AtNightWeCode 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It stopped me from doing basic bit operations. I have looked around and others have the same problem. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nxobject 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > moat widening between the model providers, their government partners, and the public. Part of me wonders whether the NSA/other TLA has either (a) an unrestricted model from a lab with less scruples like SpaceX, or (b) an in-house model, either abliterated or with data they've bought themselves. |
|
| ▲ | st3fan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Anyone can do this kind of work with a model as simple as GLM 5.3 or Kimi K3 |
|
| ▲ | dadrian an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As much as I dislike the guardrails, they are absolutely irrelevant to this task, and you will not get blocked. |
|
| ▲ | arcfour an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would you be blocked? I cannot imagine why you would be for this specific task unless the supposed backdoor turned out to be real. |
|
| ▲ | arionhardison 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How do you know this to be true? I am not disagreeing; I genially need to understand why or if others are seeing blockers that I don't see or if I am seeing blockers that they do not see. Are their guardrail benchmarks or anything of the sort that we can use to see where the bifurcation of permission/capability occurs? |
|
| ▲ | kyrofa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Open models are just as quick to refuse to do stuff, in my experience. |
|
| ▲ | lp92 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Compute has always been gated. This is nothing new. If we look at the HPC space, many of the largest clusters were restricted access and used by governments organizations. Even the ones with "public" access, not just anyone could get access to it. |
|
| ▲ | antics 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| JFYI, this is not true. I do stuff like this all the time. |
|
| ▲ | varispeed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Whenever I say that the rich have access to much more capable and unrestricted models I get downvotes. Yet here we have another example. |
