They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.
"It's a technology that we do not fully understand because it's more grown than made. And it is a technology that you can concoct plausible scenarios where it could kill every single person on the planet. So to think building this technology is without risk would be an act of hubris or insanity.
The technology is in fact so powerful that I should clearly state that if it was possible to elegantly slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time as a species to deal with it, that would likely be a good thing. ... But in the absence of a coordinated global slowdown, we are left with the current situation, which is a powerful technology being developed at breakneck speed by a variety of actors and a variety of countries locked in a competition with one another where commercial and geopolitical rivalries are often drowning out the larger existential-to-the-species aspects of the technology being built. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the one we find ourselves in."
(The ambiguity of sarcasm is intentional here.)
Then Altman made ChatGPT public, and the race began.
Idiots can scary black box their way to that concern. Plausible? Not so much.
Your comment about before LLMs is a non sequitur. Demonstrate that an LLM can kill everyone on the planet.
There can be arms-races in domains that are unfathomable to the participants. A small mammal will die a billion times over before it understands the evolutionary mechanisms and the genetic playing field on which it loses. Actors are not necessarily privy to understand the means by which they will lose, and humans have only existed in a small window of time in which we fashioned a manicured garden, in which that full understanding was briefly possible. It is not favoured in the universe for us to fully understand our environment imho
If the risk must be exhaustively detailed before it is given credence, we are already doomed, and deservedly so
Thats a really deep thought for a 12 year old.
>There can be arms-races in domains that are unfathomable to the participants.
You cant even justify LLMs as being unfathomable. Oh watch out I am fathoming them. You cant stop me fathoming all over the place.
>A small mammal will die a billion times over before it understands the evolutionary mechanisms and the genetic playing field on which it loses.Actors are not necessarily privy to understand the means by which they will lose, and humans have only existed in a small window of time in which we fashioned a manicured garden, in which that full understanding was briefly possible. It is not favoured in the universe for us to fully understand our environment imho
Non Sequitur. One that sounds like it was made up for that "What the Bleep" garbage.
>If the risk must be exhaustively detailed before it is given credence, we are already doomed, and deservedly so
The risk needs to be justified as something more substantial than weird people writing wannabe edgy messages on the internet. If someone on the internet told you that we need to drastically reverse living standards because there's a risk that modern technology will summon King Kong any reasonable person would ask for the working out instead of running for a cave.
This was completely unnecessary. I understand why you say it, you like to make people feel bad. But it was being an asshole, regardless of how you try to justify it.
I'll invite to you our ethical sociopaths group if you want to join.
Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal.
But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is.
If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1. If still overwhelmed, there are larger prices as well.
I think that most people at Anthropic are true believers from my interactions with them so I don’t believe this theory anecdotally. The simplest explanation is that it really is taking a while to gain confidence they won’t be used for a spree of bad cyber attacks. Knowing how long it takes institutions to fix security issues when filed by humans I would be more suprised if this wasn’t the case.
But I would forgive anyone who did think it was deliberately sandbagged; given the staggering sums at play, true believers might believe the ends justify the means to a little “marketing” like this.
This may not be as valuable in the long term as getting committed customers hooked at a sustainable price.
To a lot of us it’s not clear that’s what’s happening. It’s speculation and one possibility.
It may also be a secondary consideration and not the primary gating factor.
Anthropic has had their missteps but it’s still plausible to take what they say at face value.
Chinese labs will force their hands, until then let’s hope maximum number of projects get patched at a reasonable pace.
Trusting Anthropic to deliver is like asking Microsoft to pay out for bugs.
So they have a whole lot more compute now than they did last month.
For all they know they'll find a new optimization that lets them serve Opus class models for half the computing cost next month. Or someone will invent the next OpenClaw and demand will 10x over night.
As an ordinary developer who relies on a $20–$200/month subscription, I feel disappointed by the release of a paper describing a model that I can’t actually use.
> 50 initial partners ... found more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity security flaws.
GPT-2: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...
GPT-3: https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai/...
> The company believes making its API generally available was made possible due to its progress with safeguards, and that opening up the API to all developers will help see applications developed faster. ...
> A large emphasis has been placed on safe use of the tool, which in the past has been criticised for a range of shortcomings, including racism and prejudices against specific genders and religions.
[1]: https://youtu.be/TfVYxnhuEdU?t=102
Transcript of the timestamped part:
> Now, OpenAI's terms of service don't let me give you the full list. I have to curate them, and show you a sample. Those are the terms and conditions I agreed to.