They were asking for regulation. They were not asking to be singled out and prevented from releasing newer models while everybody else keeps going as usual.
Based on the reasoning for blocking Fable, every current model should be blocked. GPT 5.5 is similarly strong and has fewer guardrails, for example.
Yes, most likely, but not in this form, obviously. They want open weight models regulated for regulatory capture, and I'd assume they want an actually documented framework applied equally across all labs.
If GPT5.5 has the same capabilities Fable did, then for consistency sake, it should have also been subject to this ban.
Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers.
> Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers.
Indeed, it has been very clear since Jan 20 2025 that our executive branch of government is not a rational actor. I don't expect them to make the right decision about anything.
I can't see into their heads, and I also don't think it matters whether they were making a good-faith argument or lying through their teeth. The fact remains that what is currently happening is not what Anthropic asked for.
I don't know. I have heard from reliable source - aka the CEO of antrhopic that Mythos is in league of its own. And that the rest are grossly inferior. Anthropic can't have it both ways. If they are special - only them should fall under regulations. If they are not - why have you committed fraud in the last couple of months right before your IPO saying otherwise.
>“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.
> This literally means the models are too dangerous to release…
Unless you believe Anthropic has an irreplacable wizard or genie or fairy chained up somewhere that other providers can't replicate, someone is going to release such a thing, and that someone might be a lot more cavalier about the safety of it.
It works fine to accomplish what it is intended to do: Pick a worker to hire.
The problem is that many assume it ends there and the employee will magically go off and do great things. That is not how it works. If you've ever worked with employees before, you'll know full well that you have to regularly communicate with them to keep them on track. Even if the most stellar employee in the world trying to do everything right will never be a mind reader.
When was the last time you spoke to the person you hired for the job of representative? I expect for most reading this, the answer will be never. That is what doesn't work.
Their actions are recorded. You have full view if they are failing to do their job, and when they fail to do their job it is on you as their employer to bring the consequences. What did the people who hired John Fetterman do to stop his unacceptable behaviour? Nothing, right? That's the problem. Employees are not magical beings. They are simple, imperfect humans that need constant management. But there is this strange idea that voting is sufficient to act as the management layer. That is not how it works. Voting is only for selecting the employee you want to hire. You still have the be the employer after they are hired.
It is not fundamentally broken. The model proves to work perfectly fine in other contexts regularly. The trouble is that you, along with a lot of other people, are looking for magic so that you don't have to get your hands dirty. The harsh reality is that magic doesn't exist, I'm afraid.
It's corrupted by money, bribery, gerrymandering, an electoral system that is anti-democratic, and a two party system that has as a joint monolopy on power via division.
It is broken. As we already discussed, the employers are not fulfilling their duty as the employer. They think they can spend all day, every day, on the golf corse, metaphorically speaking, and everything will function hunky dory. That doesn't happen in the real world. Employees need management. Always have, always will.
It is not fundamentally broken. It is fixable by the people stepping up and doing what an employer needs to do. The reluctance to want to roll up sleeves is understandable, but magic doesn't exist. It is either let the employees run wild or stand up and manage them. Your choice.
> the employers are not fulfilling their duty as the employer
Ok I'm an employer, and voting is my superpower. So I guess I just need to vote for the ones that aren't corrupt and that'll fix it? Too easy. Help me out though because I don't want to screw this up...who exactly do I need to vote for to fix our broken systems?
> They think they can spend all day, every day, on the golf corse, metaphorically speaking, and everything will function hunky dory.
Wait a minute...voting isn't enough? I also need to dedicate my life to this? Ok what should I do? Run for office? Volunteer at a campaign? Whose campaign? Go to DC and protest? Lie down on the freeway? Post my thoughts on r/politics? Wait does this HN post count? Am I fixing our corrupt country right now? This is easy!
No, being the boss is your superpower. Selecting an employee to hire isn't all that important. There will never be a magical genie that grants all your wishes to choose from, just simple, imperfect humans that require constant management. Like, maybe don't pick a 'vegetable' that you cannot talk to if one shows up in the applicant pool, because you will need to talk to your employee regularly to convey what you expect of them and scold them when they screw up. It is still worth some of your time to flip through the resumes. But the reality is that of the average people who generally apply for the job, any will do as well as any other. None of them will be the ideal candidate.
> voting isn't enough?
Has hiring an employee and then cutting them loose ever been enough? Have you never had a job before? If you have, did your employer, after telling you that you got the job, disappear into the night, never to be heard from again? For those who have had jobs, the answer is an obvious: No, of course not. Why would this job somehow be different? It wouldn't be, obviously. You haven't hired a magical genie. Magic doesn't exist.
> I also need to dedicate my life to this?
No, you don't have to. The employees are generally willing to dutifully show up and do something. But if you don't stay in regular communication with them as to communicate what it is you want and expect out of them they'll be left to guess. They are certainly not mind readers. How could they know what you are thinking if you don't tell them? So, no, you don't have to, but you are not going to like the results if you don't get involved.
> Wait does this HN post count?
Do you mean count as a distraction that is taking you away from your duties as an employer? Sure. If you owned a McDonalds, would posting on HN complaining that the burgers at your establishment are coming out raw fix anything? Stranger things have happened, but I expect the odds are exceedingly low. Why would you come to HN to vent your frustrations instead of talking to the employees that aren't doing their job properly?
Ok so how exactly do I do this? That's what I'm asking. I'm trying to get your concrete recommendation here. What does "be the boss" mean? How do I actually do it?
Keep in mind that Trump was hired by the slate of electors you chose to hire. You did not choose him yourself. While ultimately all employees in your business are your responsibility, it is best for you to focus on the high ranking individuals, not the low-rung peons that are doing the busywork. First step is to call up the middle manager electors you hired directly and ask "What the hell?" They can worry about pushing things forward after that. Your role is to lead, not do everything.
In addition, you also directly hired a representative and a senator, tasked with keeping the rank and file employee in line. If they are not doing that, you also need to call them up and ask "What the hell?" If the phone is not your thing, visit their office. You are paying good money as their employer to give them an office. Don't be afraid to step foot in it. Your company directory gives the office location and phone number, in case your memory happens to be short and you've forgotten how to contact the person you hired already.
From there, it is a case by case basis. Every employee is going to have their own quirks and you have to learn how to work with them. But, I mean, they're just regular humans. You treat them like you would any other employee. If you owned a McDonalds location, you'd have to deal with imperfect humans just the same. This is no different.
If all this still is beyond your grasp, community colleges typically have management courses you can enrol in. Jumping straight in and doing it is usually the best way to learn, however. You might look like a fool the first time you engage with your employees, but who cares? By next year you'll be a seasoned pro. Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the second best time is now.
> If all this still is beyond your grasp, community colleges typically have management courses you can enrol in
You're taking this analogy too far. Managing an employee is not like electing a representative. We're not describing a boss-employee relationship here.
This motivational talk of "you have a superpower" and "you're the boss" all boiled down to one piece of concrete advice you gave: "call your representative". You've not given me anything else I can do with my high level management skills.
I admire your optimism, but I think we have enough evidence at this point to know that this is just not going to do it.
> Managing an employee is not like electing a representative. We're not describing a boss-employee relationship here.
Quite literally we are. I know it may not feel like it if you are accustomed to sitting back and letting the world crumble around you, but you are electing someone to work for you. What would the voting process be for if you didn't need anyone to do your bidding? Most importantly, why are you putting the elected on the payroll if you don't need them to work for you? Were you under the impression that they work for free?
> I think we have enough evidence at this point to know that this is just not going to do it.
If you don't like being called the boss, there's another word we use to describe participating in democracy: Lobbying. I think we can reasonably conclude that it does work because those who push a dictatorial agenda always cry about how the lobbyists (i.e. those who take time to talk to the workers) actually get things done — just not the things they imagine would get done if there was one all knowing, all powerful supreme dictator. Plus we know it works because we can see it in every other walk of life. The people don't become space aliens when the word government is thrown into the mix. People are people are people.
I get this desire for magic, but magic doesn't exist.
> there's another word we use to describe participating in democracy: Lobbying
And there's another word we can use to describe Lobbying: Bribery.
Lobbying is a (corrupt) industry and I'm not a participant in it, so unfortunately I'm still down to "call your representative".
The system really doesn't work as you say. Representatives don't respond to what their constituents want. They respond to money and and power. That's not democracy.
Which is literally lobbying, which you refuse to participate in, so that leaves accepting that all your great thoughts will be forever stuck in your head. The person you hired to work with your thoughts is most definitely not a mind reader.
> They respond to money and and power.
Money and power is not some fundamental property of the universe. It is only social. It is given to whom the people want to give it to. So, if the money and power isn't directed where you want to see it, give money and power to someone else.
> That's not democracy.
Right. Democracy takes place when you make yourself heard, by actually talking to people, not computers, about what you feel needs to be heard, while holding the representatives accountable if they do not do their job. So far you appear to be doing neither. If democracy isn't your thing, that's fine. The neat thing about democracy is if you don't like it and choose not to participate, it naturally turns into the only alternative, so everyone wins — except those who cling to the idea of magic. Unfortunately, magic doesn't exist.
> Which is literally lobbying, which you refuse to participate in, so that leaves accepting that all your great thoughts will be forever stuck in your head
It's literally not possible to fix a corrupt system by asking a participant in it to change the system that benefits them.
> Unfortunately, magic doesn't exist.
You are under the illusion that we operate under a functional democracy that responds to the will of the people. It's you that believes in magic, not me.
> You are under the illusion that we operate under a functional democracy that responds to the will of the people
If that were the case we wouldn't have spent time talking about how it is broken, nor would we have spent time talking about what needs to be done to fix it. However, like you said, when you benefit from the system there is no incentive to change.
To those reading this who are not winners under the status quo, know that you can change. The power is in your hands. Don't let the propagandists try to convince you that it is hopeless. As they suggest themselves, only those who want to keep things the same seek preservation.
> If that were the case we wouldn't have spent time talking about how it is broken
You've done exactly the opposite. All you've done is defend the system and cast blame at the "bosses" for not doing their job.
> The power is in your hands.
There you go again.
Please update this thread when you put your money where your mouth is and make a real difference. Then all those reading this can be inspired by your actions rather than your empty words.
The problem as I see it is more about a real habit of blaming the other side and keeping problems alive as wedge issues than actually solving anything. This was a problem before, and always has been to some extent, but seems to have gotten much worse since social media and twitter became ways for memes to spread virally. So much easier to get outraged about something the other guy is or is not doing, than to do the work to come up with any solutions. And the country is pretty evenly divided on which side they like, so we're just treading water in sewage mostly.
Exploiting wedge issues is how the game of politics is played, isn't it? This has been the playbook forever. Find (or create) an enemy (real or imaginary) and rally supporters against them and keep the wedges/enemies in place, so it can be exploited forever. This is true nearly in all democracies. It would be nice if it wasn't but somehow politics generally seems to attract/promote the worst people in society.
Agree. There's a direct line from Robert A Heinlein:
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."
to the anonymous scholar who first said, probably as a joke:
"If violence didn't work you didn't use enough".
Whatever you think of voting and democracy, the alternatives are far more unpleasant. Vote every time, without fail.
How does more voting resolve anything? Split up fans are still split opinions and bad politicians are still bad politicians. A 51 49 election still has the same outcome if 10 million or 100 million people voted. It seems to me that people will need to not only vote but change their voting criteria
I'm specifically thinking of the primaries here, where you often have more than two candidates and it's not a 51/49 split. I think it's very likely that the people who currently sit out the primaries would vote differently from the people who show up. It's a pretty small minority who vote in primaries, and those who do will tend to be a lot more politically active than average.
Far too many people complain about the bad candidates in the general, and don't do the most basic thing to influence that.
The ancient Athenians knew that elections favored the rich. That’s why they incorporated selection by lot into their system. Our modern understanding of democracy has fetishized elections to the point that some voters might see hundreds of them in a year, including for positions that shouldn’t ever be elected (e.g. judges), while still having little to no actual civic power.
> How will you get selection by lot into the current system without violence? Voting
Oh totally agree. But also civic involvement. The returns to even small amounts of civic engagement in America are so ridiculously high because most of the population doesn’t do it. If like 5% more of the electorate called their electeds at least twice a year, that would represent a 25% increase in civic engagement, enough to break constituencies.
I think the Athenians named our current system an oligarchy. Selection by lot would take a lot of the corrupting influence of money out of the system too. There would need to be safeguards though, similar to how juries are protected during a trial.
I read somewhere recently about how congress should be much bigger than it is currently due to population growth, and how that would make all the redistricting that currently happens irrelevant.
I've thought a lot about this, because my state is heavily gerrymandered, and the legislature keeps voting to undermine several recently passed amendments (abortion rights, marijuana) to our state constitution. They also tried to change the threshold for passing a referendum from 50% + 1 vote to 60%, when it was clear that there was enough support to pass the abortion rights amendment.
You do it via constitutional amendment, which is a popular referendum.
Fuck what the professional politicians think of sortition; do an end run around them, because professional politicians are the problem.
Get this accomplished in enough states, and then you have a level chance of doing an amendment to the US Constitution.
> You do it via constitutional amendment, which is a popular referendum.
Aka...voting.
If you truly believe "voting doesn't work", as you first said (EDIT: that was someone else whose username starts with a "b" sorry), then this referendum won't go anywhere either.
But I would say that the voting that matters most is voting in primaries. Get rid of the ideologues and zealots on both sides; get some people who can think rather than just yell.
> There's a lot of thoughtful responses to your histrionics
Sorry, can you please point to one of these thoughtful responses? I've seen one idea suggested: "sortition". But no ideas for how to get it peacefully without voting it in. I engaged with all these comments and asked this question.
"Voting doesn't work" is a cynical, doomerist, thought terminating cliche. I don't want this mind virus to propagate. You may call my comments "histrionics". But instead I suggest you take a breath and think about where calling voting and elections "useless" leads.
"Democracy" is a hugely wide category some variant of it is likely the preferred system of governance. Regardless, it's a weasel category. Many would argue that China is democratically reflecting the will of their people.
In fact, Von Mises famously argued in his seminal work Liberalism that all systems are democratic because they require the will of the people or are overthrown. A little silly of a reductio in my opinion, but it's emblematic.
Until all of your interactions are trained into future model releases, and another competitor steps in and takes all your "R&D" straight out of the model.
I'm talking about scouring Twitter/LinkedIn and look at posts from employees who say SOTA model is banned. Look at what the business do. Copy it using SOTA. Call their clients with 30% discount and faster turnaround and higher quality product.
It is complicated, but I can get Private Equity of even VCs to fund this idea.
tl;dr -- I'm actually agreeing with you. Anthropic will never copy your business model due to NDA. But there are plenty of fearmongering about they copying you and because of which you won't use their models. If their models are genuinely SOTA you can use that information to your advantage and crush scaredy-cats.
Edit: The fact that these get downvoted is exactly the reason why it's easy to win
The thing is, just like employees at non-AI forward companies "cheat," by using their personal Claude.ai and ChatGPT.com, so will big companies, or at least some teams/departments regarding this Fable issue. LLMs might be new, but it is known that this kind of behavior is classic.
As you said, if they don't, they will be easy pickings.
To be very clear, I ain't that guy. So, if this is true, I might be somewhat easy pickins myself. But, well known trust is a huge part of our org's value prop with our clients. God this sucks.
No, you're wrong and have no data to back it up. I, on the other hand, bring valuable personal experience that says AIs are useless. I asked it to do X and it did X, but it did it differently than I would do it. This means it is fundamentally flawed and complete utter trash. If it can't do X exactly how I like it without any guidance whatsoever it is not ready for prime time and never will be because it lacks "intelligence".
How is this “targeting”? It’s literally what was requested.
reply