We have seen repeatedly that users are not able to meaningfully restrict the blackbox. Besides the fact that laws are already codified restrictions.

I never said we should impose limits on open models.

▲

flavionm 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Aren't able to or have just failed to do so? Regardless, that doesn't exempt them from the responsibility. It's ultimately software they're running on their own machine, there is no one else to responsibilize for it.

I wasn't trying to imply you were advocating to restrict them, just that that is what Anthropic is doing. Legislating away all competition is worth whatever small concessions they would need to make.

	▲	Geezus_42 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, I agree. I just think there comes a point when the industry has a whole should be held accountable, and in the past we have done everything possible to shift that responsibility onto consumers how generally have very little choice in the tech they use. Well, you shoehorned it into a completely unrelated conversation, so forgive me.

▲

pessimizer 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> We have seen repeatedly that users are not able to meaningfully restrict the blackbox.

We have seen these companies repeatedly ship coding harnesses without any attempt at real sandboxing, and encourage people to let them run free. Seems that if they've somehow solved coding, they'd be able to solve making it easy for people to sandbox agents, and to be fully aware when they've enabled some LLM the ability to hack companies. Why don't they put 10,000 agents on that instead of ripping off Navier-Stokes?

	▲	Geezus_42 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Because its not profitable and that would shift responsibility onto the company that claimed it was safe, rather than the consumer who doesn't know better because the media has sold LLMs as a panacea.