felixgallo

that one is so bad that it almost sounds like an injection attack from the bastard child of the Unabomber and Elon Musk.

now imagine if we didn't even try, and instead had kids screaming for 'local nukes' because they wanted them, and the president didn't see what the problem was.

And yet we all have failed to die so far from nuclear holocaust, despite Russia being our dire enemy, because of a system of agreed controls and limits between even nations that hate each other.

Paid campaigns.

You have successfully optimized for fast, but you have not optimized for quality, extensibility, customer experience, or maintainability. Fast can be a great thing to optimize for, but there are many other situations where other optimizations are preferable.

Yes -- when audio is clearly not intended for the device, there's no point in keeping it around longer than necessary for anyone concerned. Amazon had (and likely still has) less than zero interest in mining that data for any purpose, because obviously people would trust Amazon less, and trust is very hard to regain.

Man, an attempted "I am so smart" dunk by a throwaway account.

Anyway, yes, Alexa took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, even if they did remove an attempted feature to do local-only voice response. Voice data in the Amazon cloud is well-defended.

Good news, Alexa+ (included with Prime) is already an Anthropic model, probably Sonnet.

I don't know how LG is doing it, but I suspect that they are taking the same approach for wakewords as Alexa does/did. When I worked for Alexa, it was public knowledge that we used relatively inexpensive and low power chips dedicated to wakeword detection, and those would wake up the main chips if they believed that they heard the wakeword. To my understanding, we did this because doing cloud-based wakeword detection was considered incredibly expensive and wasteful, and there are vendors with pretty decent and inexpensive wake word detection chips.

Then, when the system was more awake, it would attempt to figure out whether the wakeword was real or not (e.g. sometimes certain words and word pairs have a very similar sonic signature to 'Alexa'), and if it felt confident enough then it would begin streaming audio to the back end for significantly improved voice recognition.

Since Amazon took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, voice recordings and data were treated as essentially radioactive waste, deleted as soon as legally possible, and secured against even internal Alexa developer access.

I personally don't have the same level of confidence in security with LG, who seem to think they don't have as much to lose as far as customer trust goes and might as well exploit the heck out of the systems they have. I suspect that problem, which Amazon has so far pretty successfully avoided for the most part, is self-correcting over time.

Is Sol benchmaxxed? Of course it is. Altman was caught in previous attempts trying to game benchmarks, does anyone believe that he's found his moral compass and decided to stop exploiting as much as he can get away with?

Here come all the totally organic "wow, I guess I better switch to OpenAI" comments.

Do you suspect Amazon is going to stop delivering packages?

it's too bad you clearly didn't read the article.

no GP definitely did not. The GP said and I quote, "positively stated agenda". The 'positively' which you intentionally left off carries the weight.

Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?

oh! You mean when people were trying to distill Fable. I feel like that's a different definition of the word 'sabotage' than is in normal use. If someone is violating the TOS they agreed to with Anthropic, then they should probably not feel bad when Anthropic takes action to deal with that. Would you disagree?

it's possible that their rationale for making claims about safety is in fact that they, among everyone else, are doing the most to be prudently safe. While that's a powerful tool to compete with, that doesn't make them bad. Amodei and Anthropic have never said "open models are not safe because anyone can use them," in fact to the contrary, they've said "open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good". It's important not to muddy the water here with assertions about their intentions when they've actually been super clear about that in a way that I, at least, personally find difficult to disagree with -- releasing dangerous-capability models into the wild would likely be a bad idea for humanity. If you disagree, state why.

I also think you're confusing multiple different things, calling them all risks, lumping them together as equally bad, and using that to attribute contradictory/shady behavior to Anthropic. Depending on what you mean by 'sabotaging Fable briefly', you could either mean experiments they have run internally to try to improve alignment, or you could mean their attempts to restrict Fable from working on danger-adjacent work. Neither one of those is a 'risk'; they are both risk-analysis or risk-mitigation. That is not them 'doing the unsafe things they say are risks of open models', that is literally them working to avoid the unsafe things they say are risks of open models. They don't, in my experience, 'lay claim' to the 'safe AI company mantle' as much as they, apparently principledly and conscientiously, attempt to be safe and talk about what they're doing -- which is not in and of itself a problem.

If you think Anthropic is doing all of this badly, what's your optimum alternative here? What would you do in Amodei's shoes?

I think you're mischaracterizing Anthropic uncharitably and lumping them in with other, less savory tech billionaires, and also not thinking through the nuances here.

First, Amodei has taken an unusually strong stance among tech companies for not supplying fascist regimes with fascist tooling; in fact, even when threatened with being labeled a national security risk unless he bent the knee, he didn't. Compare and contrast with OpenAI who leapt at the opportunity to bend the knee, or obviously Elon Musk, etc., etc. When you say 'surveillance and control', that's exactly what got Anthropic labeled a national security supply chain risk: Anthropic's unwillingness to be used for that purpose.

Second, it's not clear that giving everyone extremely powerful LLMs is a great idea yet. LLMs can be used for defense and finding vulnerabilities, but that same LLM can be used to create and exploit vulnerabilities, design new lethal weapons, and so on. The history of gun availability in America 'for our freedoms' demonstrates the kind of risk that should be responsibly considered before replicating. And again, there's nuance here; yes, we should not be subjugated by fascist states with sole control of a critical technology obviously; but also, do you trust the median maga 4channer to operate a Mythos-level model with a sense of civilizational responsibility and ethics? It's not an easy and obvious question and it's not as simplistic as your argument would suggest.

That's ok to think at this point, given the trajectory of the last few years. Certainly it's one of those things where erring (marginally and slightly) on the side of being safe about it is better than the alternative.

I don’t see how you can look at what happened with hugging face and keep up the facade of anyone being alarmist or faking it.

I can't see a good faith way to reconcile that 'announcing stuff on X' and 'having guardrails' is comparable to the actions of OpenAI and Sam Altman, so I think we're going to have to conclude here. Good luck.

Palantir is a consulting company that sells a variety of products (including OpenAI models, etc.), so I think that's a valid concern but not disqualifying per se. What makes you rank OpenAI over Anthropic, given Sam's history, the New Yorker article, the disbanding of safety teams, the cheating at benchmarks, the operational and cultural problems clearly at the root of the huggingface disaster, the cozy relationship with Thiel/Kushner/Ellison/Trump, and so on?

I've got an answer, I just wonder if you have one too. For me, it's Anthropic (at least they try) > Chinese models (industrial espionage and attempted dumping but at least it's from Anthropic, who, as previous, tries) > Not Using LLMs At All And Living In A Cave > OpenAI (Sam Altman, Oracle, Peter Thiel) > SpaceX (Nazi Salutes, CSAM, open fascism and racism). Now you! This is fun.

Which provider or providers live up to yours?

Anyone using ChatGPT Work given Sam Altman's richly documented history(1), the essential elimination and/or public exit of the safety function at OpenAI(2), and the huggingface debacle's exposure of the abject operational, cultural and technical failures at OpenAI(3), is making a serious mistake.

(1) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may... (2) https://thenextweb.com/news/openai-preparedness-team-disband... (3) https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2026/08/29/metr-and-redwood-off...

It’s possible to squint and overlook Sam Altman’s history of weirdness and deception, but the elimination of safety teams at OpenAI and the entire huggingface debacle show that there are deep cultural, architectural and operational issues there that should be immediately disqualify products like this from general use or recommendation.

who cares?

your argument is obviously ridiculous and you should feel bad about it.

So we as a country have, for many decades, decided that things like 'soft power' exist. It turns out, and this has been borne out by many years of relative peace and prosperity, that if you don't shit on the world, alienate your neighbors, start ill-advised wars, and instead help prevent global disease pandemics and feed people so that they don't become destabilizing terrorists out of necessity, benefits accrue. See every history textbook ever for more information here. Hope this helps.