Of course it isn't about that, what we see online in the "news" is completely irrelevant with reality in most cases, it's exhausting to see people parroting what giant corps & gov are saying as if it's not extremely well crafted and plain false or deceptive most of the time. It's not even about politic left or right, both sides are acting completely dumb about it, look at Google trends, people are literally being "switched" topic at scale just because a news is saying something, it's absurd. Reading a news shouldn't affect your behavior for the coming months if you have common sense.
My personal opinion is that it makes sense so the US remain a superpower by forcing tech businesses and research to move/re-incorporate to the US so practically anything "new" will always be US Made. If we assume that better models means more revenues for any company in the future, then US will always have an edge if they lock everything down, but it's a risky bet.
babelfish 9 minutes ago [-]
It is crazy to debate whether this is 'left or right' when the right holds all 3 branches of government
ericmay 26 minutes ago [-]
What makes it a risky bet?
swatcoder 11 minutes ago [-]
The assumptions are that
* "better models" will remain so signficantly more profitable for firms that have access to them that that they're effectively a "must have" for big orgs, rather than a grossly overpriced marginal gain
* said better models will only be attainable by orgs in US jurisdiction, rather than by foreign alternatives that come to be either independently or through a legally clever "cleaving" of a US-jurisdiction business interest that wants access to an eager international market
If either of those are wrong, restricting Anthropic et al to only sell to the domestic market is effectively a poison pill that makes it much harder for them to meet growth and profitability objectives and could see them lose their market-leading position sooner and more thoroughly than if they retained access to a larger market and had more flexibility.
everforward 11 minutes ago [-]
The dual risks of either a) accidentally pushing a foreign competitor into the lead and losing dominant status, or b) pushing the underlying companies hard enough that they decide to relocate.
a) is specifically the risk that the export controls push companies in other countries to prefer non-US models due to the lowered risk of getting cut off from a model. The increase in revenue for non-US AI providers combined with the drop in revenue for US AI providers allows non-US providers to double down on training and reach parity or exceed US SOTA models.
b) is sort of self-explanatory. Same model as above, but when the US AI providers start seeing the revenue drop they decide to relocate internationally instead. The US would probably try to stop that, no idea how successful they would be.
pixel_popping 17 minutes ago [-]
Because it would really increase the interest for Chinese/EU models and would even create real incentives to build models outside of the US.
red-iron-pine 18 minutes ago [-]
risk
simonw 12 minutes ago [-]
This is a frustrating article - it provides no new information at all to support the claim that it was "never about a jailbreak".
I suspect there's more to the story than has been reported too, but I'd like information to help turn those suspicions into something more concrete.
kodt 10 minutes ago [-]
Yes, this is just an even shorter rehash of what has been said several times now.
Feds freaked over Fable 5 after simple 'fix this code' prompt, not jailbreak (theregister.com) 398 points | 6 hours ago | 223 comments
leemoore 13 minutes ago [-]
It's the executive branch asserting control in this space and requiring all SOTA model providers to bend the knee. Anthropic is the least capable of playing the bend the knee game so is getting the first and worst smack down
drivebyhooting 1 minutes ago [-]
Why isn’t codex banned?
Will the ban be miraculously lifted once OpenAI releases their mythos-level model?
The executive is holding American business in a Putin-style prisoner dilemma.
As an European, I really don't get where this strategy wants to take the USA to. It's pretty clear everyone is getting scared about changes like this that happen overnight, without clear reason and completely unpredictable.
Business requires a stable environment, and Trump is making everything in his power to disrupt business stability. Ultimately, I see the rest of the world (especially Europe) relying less and less on US tech. The long term damage is done.
All the US companies that used to think about the entire world (minus China) as their market will figure out that it is much smaller then they used to think.
LurkandComment 28 minutes ago [-]
If you're a global health benefits platform that relies on an AI model, do you think you're going to choose one that can get shutoff by a country due to something not remotely related to your business? If you're a buyer of that benefits platform, do you factor this into your purchasing now? X every industry.
etchalon 11 minutes ago [-]
I find it easier, with this administration, to assume corruption first, incompetence second, maliciousness third and all other reasonings only after several rounds of reporting and evidence.
smrtinsert 11 minutes ago [-]
I can only imagine the unintended consequence of this whole fiasco will be for frontier providers to not provide future "warnings" about model capabilities in order to de risk earnings
UrineSqueegee 41 minutes ago [-]
Should be pointed out this is an opinion article
ltononro 13 minutes ago [-]
This is one of the things I am most afraid of.
Governments can break the progress of AI and this could be a bubble burster?
SG- 18 minutes ago [-]
Look at how the Trump administration treats Canada, it's the same thing. They lie and make up reasons to punish countries that hurts their feelings.
catigula 25 minutes ago [-]
>“The behavior described in the paper cannot meaningfully be fixed, and any attempt would only weaken the model for defense,” said Moussouris, who criticized the export control directive as hasty, heavy-handed, and misguided.
This literally means the models are too dangerous to release, and yet he and they reached the opposite conclusion.
A lot of people have been saying this repeatedly for a long time.
switchbak 23 minutes ago [-]
Or perhaps: we don't want our adversaries fixing all the security holes we rely on.
Or even: this is a good chance to stick it back to Anthropic.
kylemaxwell 22 minutes ago [-]
Mousssouris is not a "he".
cratermoon 29 minutes ago [-]
So the article calls it "knowledge gaps". Has technical expertise ever mattered when the law wants to ban or restrict something it doesn't like? The DMCA comes to mind.
Veer_Pratap08 14 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
catigula 26 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
37 minutes ago [-]
Rendered at 16:32:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
My personal opinion is that it makes sense so the US remain a superpower by forcing tech businesses and research to move/re-incorporate to the US so practically anything "new" will always be US Made. If we assume that better models means more revenues for any company in the future, then US will always have an edge if they lock everything down, but it's a risky bet.
* "better models" will remain so signficantly more profitable for firms that have access to them that that they're effectively a "must have" for big orgs, rather than a grossly overpriced marginal gain
* said better models will only be attainable by orgs in US jurisdiction, rather than by foreign alternatives that come to be either independently or through a legally clever "cleaving" of a US-jurisdiction business interest that wants access to an eager international market
If either of those are wrong, restricting Anthropic et al to only sell to the domestic market is effectively a poison pill that makes it much harder for them to meet growth and profitability objectives and could see them lose their market-leading position sooner and more thoroughly than if they retained access to a larger market and had more flexibility.
a) is specifically the risk that the export controls push companies in other countries to prefer non-US models due to the lowered risk of getting cut off from a model. The increase in revenue for non-US AI providers combined with the drop in revenue for US AI providers allows non-US providers to double down on training and reach parity or exceed US SOTA models.
b) is sort of self-explanatory. Same model as above, but when the US AI providers start seeing the revenue drop they decide to relocate internationally instead. The US would probably try to stop that, no idea how successful they would be.
I suspect there's more to the story than has been reported too, but I'd like information to help turn those suspicions into something more concrete.
Feds freaked over Fable 5 after simple 'fix this code' prompt, not jailbreak (theregister.com) 398 points | 6 hours ago | 223 comments
The executive is holding American business in a Putin-style prisoner dilemma.
Business requires a stable environment, and Trump is making everything in his power to disrupt business stability. Ultimately, I see the rest of the world (especially Europe) relying less and less on US tech. The long term damage is done.
All the US companies that used to think about the entire world (minus China) as their market will figure out that it is much smaller then they used to think.
This literally means the models are too dangerous to release, and yet he and they reached the opposite conclusion.
A lot of people have been saying this repeatedly for a long time.
Or even: this is a good chance to stick it back to Anthropic.