Hacker News Reader

Comment by amazingamazing | Hacker News Reader

> We’re proposing stronger regulation of the technology. We’re proposing giving the government the ability to, again in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology.

Anthropic CEO https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...

View on HN

Okay, so why are other models not banned too? This "jailbreak" works for them as well.

How would you know? Amazon and the NSA thought it was a problem, but you know better?

Know what better? They told us what the "jailbreak" entails.

Anthropic has alleged that this model is much more dangerous than other currently available models. Their CEO has said so publicly multiple times. It's like asking why cesium isn't banned if nuclear missiles are banned.

(whether Mythos is actually that dangerous is beside the point; considering that Anthropic claims that it is, it makes sense to regulate it)

Did you mean this?:

https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...

[flagged]

Yes, correct. Singling out companies based on political beefs and to incentivize everyone to curry favor is the worst way to do regulation.

You're correct, yet it's also a fact that Anthropic was attempting regulatory capture in order to limit open weight models, cripple their competition and solidify their market position. Nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer Schadenfreude of the situation. Their self-serving fearmongering had the most hilariously unexpected result possible.

Maybe. But I disagree in general with "nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer schadenfreude of the situation". Schadenfreude is a description of a common human impulse that is not a good impulse!

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm gonna make an exception. These are billionaires who campaign against open weight models. Their misfortunes are our freedom.

Nope, if everyone makes exceptions for the people that specifically annoy them, then there will always be some exception for everybody. Much better to endeavor not to give into your own vices, even the understandable ones.

You can come up with and advocate for a policy to be evenly applied to all the billionaires whose "misfortunes are our freedom", instead of supporting this corrupt favoritism.

Regulation is a published rule applied equally to all the industry. Not one applied to a target for retribution or to extract submission

Applying equally to all the industry is a characteristic of good regulation, not of regulation tout court.

Arbitrary enforcement of a regulations is against the principles of administrative law and gives rise to a cause of action that can set aside the governments action. So all regulation has that as an explicit assumption.

There is also a case that it violates due process because anthropic wasn’t provided adequate notice before enforcement or an opportunity to challenge, respond, or take steps to comply.

There is latitude for compelling state interests and national security is one with the widest latitude and potentially one that counts can’t review. But the court of public opinion may draw the inference that this is direct retaliation for refusing to make the models available for autonomous weapons and spying.

Anthropic published, not a two-word request for regulation, but a lengthy proposal for how regulation could work, with safeguards and due process.

Instead, one morning the administration just woke up, grabbed the nearest hammer, and went smash, like it usually does.

They proposed a plan to ensure their dominance of the space and to cripple any competitors using regulation as the weapon. So I’m not going to feel sorry for them and their temporary plight

Do you have evidence of that?

PAGE NOT FOUND The page you requested was not found. You may have followed an old link or typed the address incorrectly.

I'm sure it says something that you think makes this a slam-dunk rebuttal, but you should fix your link first.

Edit: Saw the link. I was right. Nothing in that link makes a difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com